>> ^lantern53:

Which part of the 'right wing drivel' is BS?
The part about individual freedom and responsibility?
The part about fiscal responsibility?
The part about following the Constitution, which is the founding document of this country?
The part about free markets?


Wait. Fiscal responsibility? Free markets? Really? The right wing is still trying to lay claim to those virtues? If nothing else, I had hoped the Federal bailout package of the Wall Street scumbags who were the knowing architects of the ongoing global financial meltdown would have purchased us an end to that load of crap.

There is a two-way contractual system The bank agrees to loan, taking on all the risks associated with such load. The borrow does the same. ... You say the borrower should check his account, but that is barely his job: whereas it is the job of the banks.

I'm having a tough time conjoining these two bits here. We both agree that the loan is a two-way contract where the bank agrees to lend, and the borrower agrees to borrow - and that both parties agree to the risks involved. And yet there is this second bit here where you say that it is 'barely the job' of the borrower to check his balance and manage his end of the contract. If someone agrees to a contract that carries the risk of bankruptcy, homelessness, or financial ruin then to say it is 'barely' thier job to check the account comes off to me as insanely negligent.

I'd be interested to hear your explanation for all the banks that are doing just fine because they didn't buy into the mortgage scheme. I've heard radio interviews where they simply say that they didn't lend to anyone who couldn't be reasonably expected to pay for it. How did they escape your Catch-22?

Depends on the bank. Peeling back the onion that is the banking industry is complex, but back in the 90s the ones that were really pushing for the repeal of Glass-Steagall were not 'banks' in the sense that most people think about them. They were large, multi-national financial institutions and insurance companies - AIG being the principle player. These kinds of big money houses saw a way to make profit on the buying & selling of mortgages as financial packages WITHIN the financial industry itself. Effectively, the customer getting the loan was utterly irrelevant to these big players. They were interested in the financial packaging - not the loans themselves.

So when the law was changed, it allowed them to throughput mortgages within their own organizations. Historically, Glass-Steagall made it illegal for a financial house like AIG to buy & sell mortgages from banks that it owned or partnered with. But after the change, they could pool all the loans together and market them as a product. They started putting pressure on the smaller players to churn out more debt. There were banks that didn't play the game, but it was tough becuase all through the late 90s and early 00s, people were making money hand over fist the sl-easy way.

I have no doubt that there were politicians who pushed for easier mortgages to please their vocal minority constituents, but the people who stood most to gain were the wall street big money handlers. In your estimation, which of these groups tends to get their way in politics most readily? And therefor, which of these groups is more to blame?

Your question is this... Who is more to blame - the person MAKING A BRIBE or the person TAKING THE BRIBE? My answer is that the person TAKING THE BRIBE bears the greater guilt. All the bribes in the world are worthless if the other guy doesn't TAKE it. Businesses have no power to pass laws. That power rests in Congress. They are the stewards. They are the gatekeepers. They are the ones that are given public trust to only pass good laws, and to guard against this kind of crap.

Sadly - this is what happens when you allow a strong, central government to exist. I remember VERY clearly in the 90s that when AIG, Barney Frank, and a bunch of other guys were strong-arming the repeal of Glass-Stegall they were VERY insistent and persuasive that they were doing a really GOOD thing. It was going to lower the cost of housing. It was going to get more poor people into homes. It was going to make a lot of money for the middle-class, and ease the burden of the poor. In fact, the "repeal Glass-Stegall" guys were vociferious in accusing those OPPOSING their plan of being evil, selfish, cruel, and racist. And until October of 2008, who could really argue with them?

Government should have known better. Glass-Steagall was made a law SPECIFICALLY to prevent housing market collapses like this. It was implemented as a direct result of similar shenanigans which caused the Great Depression and the crash of the 20s. But because government people were wanting votes and conduct 'social engineering', they changed the laws. AIG didn't change the laws. Government did. They bear the ultimate responsibility.

In no way does this absolve folks like AIG. Quite frankly, the federal bailout is a massive crime aginst the people. It dumped money into financial houses to shield them from the consequences of their stupidity. The banks should have been allowed to fail. When this kind of thing happens, you let the chips fall and then the system rebuilds itself. And it does so rather quickly when government isn't there screwing things up like they did in the 30s.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker: You really and truly believe that humans are brainless puddings that can't move, think, or live unless some government plan is marching them around, don't you?

The gov really has nothing to do with how our food gets picked, except that they more or less stay out of the way. You are suggesting that they remove the only population willing to do the work at the wages offered by the market. Markets do right themselves, they do this only after the effects hit consumers. Products with long production cycles, such as agriculture, can fall to inaccessibility before the market corrects.

Strictly enforcing immigration laws in California, besides being infeasible, would bankrupt the ag industry, and force a giant federal bailout, massive price increases, and food shortages, that seems a lot more governmentally invasive than what I suggest doing, and leaving them the fuck alone, letting them work, and even collect on some of the services they are paying for.

If you can't afford that, then you qualify for Medicaid.

Oh, and that's okay? But having a similar system which covers everybody is not? Sorry you lost me there. If I am near the line, cycling in and out of Medicaid would put me in a preexisting condition death spiral pretty fast.

If you're SMART (like me) then you'll also have an HSA or cafeteria plan where you set aside a chunk of your income every paycheck for health expenses.

Ah, paycheck, I pay self employment tax, don't have the same options for write offs as you.

a little common sense and frugality.

Frugal? Really? please don't mess with me on frugal, I own my house, I have $0 in debt, I spent about $500 a month for living expenses for myself and my GF. Next.

Your example here falls flat, because auto insurance and life insurance companies do the exact same thing.

1) life insurance is a scam.
2) auto state min coverage is highly regulated in most states. If you bought up to cover your own car expect to be taken to the cleaners, my whole point is that only highly regulated insurance is worth buying.

Not sure why you keep implying that medical insurance companies don't actually cover anything. That's patently untrue.

They don't cover nothing, they do systematically not cover things which they claim to provide, and require arm twisting and lawyers to pay up. It's not that I am sure that they won't pay, that is not my contention, it's just that I'm not sure that they will, and that makes buying their policies seem like a pretty stupid move, even if it were economically feasible.

I'm happy to share risk, but I need to have some assurance that my risk will be mitigated as well, and the current system does not offer that to my satisfaction.

wait a tic...

this segment of rachel's bashes on:

dana perino (bush admin press secretary)
rush limbaugh (republican gasbag)
sen. mitch mcconnell - kentucky (r)
sen. bob corker - tennessee (r)
sen. john mccain - arizona (r)

with absolutely no mention of *any* democrat, specifically this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/aig.bonuses.congress/index.html

"Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.

"Dodd acknowledged his role in the change after a Treasury Department official told CNN the administration pushed for the language.

"Both Dodd and the official, who asked not to be named, said it was because administration officials were afraid the government would face numerous lawsuits without the new language.

"Dodd, a Democrat, told CNN's Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer that Obama administration officials pushed for the language to an amendment designed to limit bonuses and "golden parachutes" at those companies."

and then rachel throws in a somewhat disingenuous correlation between median household income growth from the '70s through to 2000, and then falling to negative growth over the last eight years, as she would have us believe, because of wall street deregulation?? isn't such a decline far more likely because of the tech bubble bursting at the end of the last decade, or a recession beginning in march 2001, or 9/11 and a subsequently ham-handed 'war on terror'?

i'm as outraged as the next american over this fiasco... but is what rachel's doing here really 'news'?

it seems dishonest, at least to me, so i guess the 'lies' tag is fitting

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I'm too lazy to go back through all my videos and upvote them. Think I'll wait for the federal bailout upvotes to come in.


Lucky is running a script to auto-vote all of your own videos.

I'm too lazy to go back through all my videos and upvote them. Think I'll wait for the federal bailout upvotes to come in.

Wikipedia:
"On February 9, 2009 Thomas was present in the front row for newly elected President Obama's news conference regarding the federal bailout bill. President Obama called on her with the statement "Helen. I'm excited, this is my inaugural moment." This was seemingly a reference to her long-term presence in the White House Press Corps. She asked the new president if any Middle Eastern country possessed nuclear weapons and whether Pakistan and Afghanistan were havens for terrorists."


I like how he says "With all due respect to Helen Thomas" .. while proceeding to show his complete disrespect and contempt for her.

Jake, first great comment.

What the US economy has become is a fundamental symptom of globalization and liberalization of trade markets, historically nations shifted from primary (extraction of raw resources), to secondary (manufacturing) and into tertiary (services and R&D) economies. The UK is a classic example of this shift in economic structure, moving from coal extraction, to textile mills to now financial centers over a large time span.

You are correct in pointing out that the US economy is now mostly a services, consumer and I would add R&D based economy. Now this is not a bad thing from a economics viewpoint for two reasons comparative advantage and trade liberalization.

Nations cannot be self contained and produce everything for themselves, various nations around the world have tried this and failed. Inherently there will be some things, for example, America (entertainment) will be good at and some things that Cuba (cigars) will be good at, the best case scenario is then for both nations to trade between themselves. This is called comparative advantage and it can be in R&D, manufacturing and services and so on.

When the great depression hit, nations around the world imposed large tariffs and trade restrictions that essentially killed world trade, reduced comparative advantage trade. The last 80 years of General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs (GATT) and World Trade Organization (WTO) have been working at reducing the trade restrictions that didn't exist prior to the great depression.

Essentially at the very core, what the US economy has become is the consumer and services dynamo of the world, China has become a large manufacturer and both are dependent on one another for the continual economic growth of the world. Due to trade liberalization and comparative advantage. This is globalization at it's most simplified level.

This is why the bailout is essentially created to loosen the credit and allow consumer expenditure to increase through transmission of economic projects throughout the economy at a fiscal level. We are trying to increase consumer spending, and consumer confidence not to simply rebuild Detroit and let car manufacturers burn through credit.

Now there is alot of complexity and problems that arise at almost every sentence I wrote down, but this is the basic restructuring of the world economy that is taking place and its beneficial for the world as a whole, because interdependence on a trade and economic level would mean increased productive efficiency, use of scarce resources and security.

Yes it is possible it will emerge as a social contract, but what are the alternatives?

Protectionism will essentially undo everything the last 80 years have built, and there were moves for this in the bill which are now being stricken because of a fear of trade war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7871219.stm

Drastic realignment and change in government structure or what I like to call the Ron Paul effect is not political viable in any way, it would necessitate the utter change in government structure and national security profile (since major components involves withdrawal and draw down).

I think the problem is more rooted in the malfeasance of the Federal reserve and its stance towards regulating derivatives and sub prime market mortgages, we had a massive repackaging of toxic debt that was then marked favorably by the very agencies that are supposed to mark out risky packages. There was further failure in the SEC when it came down to clamping down on illegal activities, especially when it came to catching the Maddoff scandal.

I don't believe we will have a massive devaluation in the US dollar as China holds the largest US foreign reserves at this moment, as well as foreign debt along with nations like Japan. They will not want to make America default and collapse as a economic power as the repercussions will directly and severely effect them as well, a key part of globalization.

What is needed is essential CPR to the US consumer sector, but tax cuts alone will not work if people don't have jobs. So consumer confidence and consumer spending must be stimulated through other means, like the federal bailout that is being discussed right now. However I don't think it goes far enough in increasing credit in the economy, you must allow banks to start giving out lines of credit and drive economic activity.

We will see how this situation develops, I think its a hard sell either way and the next few years will be hard not matter what plan is imposed.

how ironic is it that the most "retarded" candidate has the best views on the economy? (she is the only one out of the four who has condemned the recent federal bailouts)

Also:

4. federal bailouts of businesses (such as feddie mae/frannie mac)
Obama - help homeowners shore up mortgages rather than bail out companies
McCain- too big to fail, bail out companies not speculative homeowners who are whining now

Obama and McCain have the same stance on Freddie Mae/Frannie Mac: both want to bail them out. Obama recently said "the housing market has all but collapsed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to be effectively taken over by the government".

This is probably one of the most important issues in the economy today--if you bail out one business--you have to bail them all out. And if you bail out every failing business what you are left with is communism.

>> ^imstellar28:
does it really matter? anyone who is voting for either party has already lost sight of what's really at stake.
can anyone explain to me the differences between Obama/McCain's stance on:
1. preemptive warfare
"McCain supports the Bush Doctrine and Obama opposes it"

2. increasing the size of government
McCain talks the conservative game of smaller government but has supported all of Bush's expansion of the national government
Obama wants to expand healthcare and other social programs, but says that will come at the expense of other programs (subscribves to PAYGO philosophy)
Not so clear on this one

3. FISA
Obama pissed off liberals with support of FISA
McCain seems to be obfuscating his opinion

4. federal bailouts of businesses (such as feddie mae/frannie mac)
Obama - help homeowners shore up mortgages rather than bail out companies
McCain- too big to fail, bail out companies not speculative homeowners who are whining now

5. the federal reserve
neither cnadidate represents change on this issue (although it is a bit fringe for most americans to care about)

6. personal liberties
is this the FISA question again, or are we talking abortion? too vague to disinguish differences

7. bringing all troops home from all 741 military bases
Ridiculously leading topic that assumes that isolationism is the correct strategy

8. foreign policy in afghanistan
Obama - get Bin Laden, secure AFghan/Pakistani borderlands
McCain - get Bin Laden, but not in Pakistan. Iraq matters more

9. stance on the georgia/russia conflict
Obama - 'there needs to be active international engagement to peacefully address the disputes over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, including a high-level and neutral international mediator, and a genuine international peacekeeping force – not simply Russian troops.'
McCain - Georgia conflict is the ‘first serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War.’ [RIGGGHHHT?!?] Russia's evil!

10. the ICC
Obama - consult with military commanders and examine the track record of the Court before reaching a decision on whether the U.S. should become a State Party to the ICC
McCain - 'the ICC was not set up for countries such as the U.S.'

11. inflation
gonna guess that they're both against it

12. income taxes
McCain- continue Bush cuts for wealthiest Americans, give a few pennies to those at the bottom
Obama - let Bush tax cuts expire, give tax breaks to 95% of Americans
graphical representation

13. the war on drugs
Obama - reduce sentences for dealers, needle exchange, nothing about foreign policy
McCain - stronger borders, tougher penalties and sentences, funded wars against drug producing countries (i.e., Colombia)

14. offshore drilling
Obama - can be part of energy plan if it helps gain approval
McCain - we're gonna drill our way outta this in just 2 years, wait 5 years, no 10 years (ok... never)

15. the patriot act
Obama - YES to re-authorization, NO to expanded wiretapping
McCain - YES to re-authorization, YES to expanded wiretapping

16. the graham-levin amendment
Obama - no guantanamo, yes to habeas corpus, no torture, no forced testimony
McCain - no guantanamo, no habeas corpus, no torture (but not really)

17. supported school of economics
Obama - Chicago school of economics
McCain - admitted he doesn't know much about economics

18. creationism
Obama - "religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking" from Audacity of Hope
McCain - doesn't believe in it but VP Palin sure does

19. agricultural subsidies
Obama - limit subsidies, try to get them to small farmers and not corporations
McCain - opposes subsidies, gets in the way of free trade agreements

20. social security entitlements
Obama - remove $97K cap, no privatization, no new commission
McCain - personal savings accounts, maybe raise the cap above $97K

21. the bureaucratic class
Got bored just thinking about researching this

22. national debt
Obama - repeal Bush cuts, end Iraq War, pay-as-you-go system, balanced budget
McCain - debt bad, balanced budget, stop pork and earmarks

I am more informed now, hope you are. Although that took way too long and I am a bit tired of it. If you want more, you can always start here: On the Issues.

does it really matter? anyone who is voting for either party has already lost sight of what's really at stake.

can anyone explain to me the differences between Obama/McCain's stance on:

1. preemptive warfare
2. increasing the size of government
3. FISA
4. federal bailouts of businesses (such as feddie mae/frannie mac)
5. the federal reserve
6. personal liberties
7. bringing all troops home from all 741 military bases
8. foreign policy in afghanistan
9. stance on the georgia/russia conflict
10. the ICC
11. inflation
12. income taxes
13. the war on drugs
14. offshore drilling
15. the patriot act
16. the graham-levin amendment
17. supported school of economics
18. creationism
19. agricultural subsidies
20. social security entitlements
21. the bureaucratic class
22. national debt