Quote :

"It sucks that they had use our money to do it, but letting AIG go down wasn't an option. "

I dunno, A global financial meltdown may be exactly what we need.

9/17/2008 10:23:50 AM

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i-pLQW20k50DG8EF0T3RFrFdH96wD9384DM00

In other news, it's mattress stuffing tme

9/17/2008 10:27:34 AM

Quote :

"Look, Congress approves the spending that George Bush gives them. If there is overspending then it's because Bush asked for it. "

Bullshit. George Bush has vetoes numerous spending bills during the democrat's time in Congress only to be overturned. The last Agriculture Bill comes to mind.

This does not discount the numerous bills that George Bush signed because the Congress bundled spending Bush hated with other spending Bush could never veto.

It always seemed to me that Congress' ability to combine any number of un-like spending into a single bill and say to the president "veto if you dare, 'President vetoes funding for orphans' when what he was trying to block was a subsidy or two.

9/17/2008 10:47:59 AM

Where was that veto pen when the republicans had control of congress?

9/17/2008 10:56:29 AM

George Bush, being a partisan just like every other President, only vetoes bad ideas when they are pushed through congress by the other party, and even then only with the provisoes established in my earlier post.

What we need is a president that will veto every bill no matter what is in it and see what happens. Maybe Congress will concentrate on just what the nation needs if it requires a 2/3rd majority to pass. Or, maybe log-rolling will set in and public policy will become even more irrational. No way to know until we try!

[Edited on September 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM. Reason : .,.]

9/17/2008 11:02:12 AM

2/3 supermajority, not 3/4

9/17/2008 11:03:38 AM

Quote :

"Although I was thinking more of the current presidential nominees and what kind of leadership they will bring. Leadership based on fiscal conservatism is much needed after the recent spending spree. Even if one were to not agree with his policies, it is hard to deny McCain wouldn't be much, much more fiscally conservative than Obama."

This cracks me up. Sometimes stereotypes get so ingrained that even the facts won't dispell them. For the last 30 years, Republican presidents, republican congress, record deficits - these are all people that campained as fiscal conservatives.

Read the last page, even the Republicans generally agree that Republicans have overspent and fucked things up, with some blame given to the Democratic congress because they've been in congress for the last 2 years. Socks even says, "hey, the democrats didn't stand up to him". Stand up to him, he campained as a fiscal conservative! As they all do. Despite the facts, they still paint the Democrats as tax and spenders, when the only Democratic president we've had is the one who turned around the economy.

It must be nice to be able to always fall back on the, "accepted paradigm", despite the facts, and then say, "Trust us. We're serious this time."

9/17/2008 11:21:26 AM

we need to cut spending. that should be the number 1 goal of the next admin. PERIOD. All the other shit just doesnt matter if we cant fund any of it.

We could be heading towards hyperinflation if they dont stop spending money we dont have.

9/17/2008 1:37:14 PM

I just can't fathom this.

The Federal Government is now the majority shareholder of a multi-national insurance company.

9/17/2008 1:47:16 PM

I thought Republicans were against Socialism.

9/17/2008 1:47:54 PM

yeah, that and it owns over half of the houses in the entire country.

U.S.S.A FTW!

9/17/2008 1:48:03 PM

^^^^ I tend to agree. I just don't think there is much historical evidence (other than "common knowledge") that the Republicans would be any better at it than the Democrats. But, I think you have to deduct "Judgement Points" from the Republican voters for electing so many "fiscal conservatives" that have spent so much money.

[Edited on September 17, 2008 at 1:51 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

9/17/2008 1:50:20 PM

Even mccain now has an ad saying something about taking the risks out of investments... We are SO fucked. No risk investments huh... well its pretty shitty when the republican nominee is socialist too.

Maybe he will get some sense knocked into him soon.

9/17/2008 1:51:07 PM

The "impressive" US economy.

9/17/2008 1:53:46 PM

We're down another 3% so far today.

This is not a drill, folks.

Is the U.S. Going Broke?
http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2008/0929/034.html


[Edited on September 17, 2008 at 1:59 PM. Reason : ...]

9/17/2008 1:56:47 PM

To hell with the Bush recession. We are headed towards the bush depression.

9/17/2008 2:01:44 PM

Does anyone have faith that either party, any agencies, or any companies are going to be able to fix this?

Serious question.

9/17/2008 2:11:32 PM

Actually John McCain tried to prevent this collapse. I just found out about this. I bet the media doesnt touch it with a ten foot pole.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16

"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."


This would really help out mccain if this gets out.

9/17/2008 2:15:34 PM

[no]

9/17/2008 2:15:41 PM

^^You mean the man, who until yesterday, was against any sort of regulation? the man, who despite all the economic indicators pointing in the opposite, maintained throughout this campaign that the economic fundamentals are strong, the man who did not update his speech because he was completely oblivious to the economic problems that happened on Monday then later attempted to spin economic fundamentals into somehow meaning workers? That man?

9/17/2008 2:24:10 PM

McCain trying to pass laws and regulations!!?? That's not what we need - we need fewer laws! Fewer regulations! Let the free market work it out on it's own!!!
McCain = fucking socialist!

9/17/2008 2:24:14 PM

I wonder what the GOP talking points are going to be, after the convention in which they talked about nothing but the evils of regulation.

9/17/2008 2:25:15 PM

nutsmacker

Quote :

"You mean the man, who until yesterday, was against any sort of regulation? "

Actually, um, eyedrb's quote sorta disproves that entire premise. By my count, May 2006 (when McCain was calling for more regulation) was over 2 years ago and not yesterday.

Just letting you know.

[Edited on September 17, 2008 at 2:30 PM. Reason : ``]

9/17/2008 2:30:02 PM

Of one entity, due to its intertangled relationship with the united states government. Other than that, McCain was against that.

How do you refute this quote to the Wall Street Journal by Mssr. McCain - "I’m always for less regulation."

[Edited on September 17, 2008 at 2:35 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2008 2:32:31 PM

We need Ron Paul...

9/17/2008 2:36:24 PM

Quote :

"Does anyone have faith that either party, any agencies, or any companies are going to be able to fix this?"

nope, any "fixes" that come down from the top are just going to be more of the same status quo. Thats exactly why I think we need it to collapse.

9/17/2008 2:41:47 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091603732.html?hpid=topnews

Quote :

"In 2002, McCain introduced a bill to deregulate the broadband Internet market, warning that "the potential for government interference with market forces is not limited to federal regulation." Three years earlier, McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by then-Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies. That bill allowed AIG to participate in the gold rush of a rapidly expanding global banking and investment market. But the legislation also helped pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments. McCain now condemns the executives at those companies for pursuing the ambitions that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act made possible, saying that "in an endless quest for easy money, they dreamed up investment schemes that they themselves don't even understand." .... But he has usually reverted to the role of an unabashed deregulator. In 2007, he told a group of bloggers on a conference call that he regretted his vote on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, which has been castigated by many executives as too heavy-handed. In the 1990s, he backed an unsuccessful effort to create a moratorium on all new government regulation. And in 1996, he was one of only five senators to oppose a comprehensive telecommunications act, saying it did not go far enough in deregulating the industry. As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee for more than a decade, McCain did not have direct oversight of the financial sector. But he sat at the center of arguments between telephone, cable and satellite companies, almost always pressing for more competition. "I'm always for less regulation," he told the Wall Street Journal in March. He added: "I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated.""

9/17/2008 2:42:00 PM

Honestly who gives a fuck what Obama or McCain SAY. We all know what politicians say and what they actually do are two entirely different worlds.

9/17/2008 2:46:30 PM

Which is why McCain's sudden epiphany on the Road to Damascus is so laughable.

9/17/2008 2:50:08 PM

You guys will do anything to spin the fact that he actually did try to stop this shit. Its clear Fannie was corrupt and basically had an open checkbook with fed money. When taxpayer money is being used, you bet your ass thier needs to be some oversight. NOw for other businesses we need less of it, no doubt.

Also, the fundamentals of the economy are strong. This is the shock of the housing bubble bursting and our govts policies biting us in the ass and rippling through other sectors. This is all a result of the housing sector. Do any of you disagree with that?

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.


Exactly terd, however it wont matter to your or most that McCain actually tried to DO something about this mess.. before it happened.

[Edited on September 17, 2008 at 2:51 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2008 2:50:18 PM

He wanted to do regulation for 2 businesses, after he removed regulations from the other businesses.

9/17/2008 2:52:05 PM

Quote :

"Exactly terd, however it wont matter to your or most that McCain actually tried to DO something about this mess.. before it happened. "

Actually eyedrb Im pretty impressed he supported that legislation, I figured he owned a bunch of stock in fannie and freddie, but at the same time, your right, I still dont care.

The only reason it doesnt matter to me is because I believe the entire system (government ties with large banking/hedge funds, the fed etc) is just one big money making scheme that siphons huge amounts of money off of us "normal" citizens. If they had managed to reign these companies in the fat cats would have just found some other way. I guess I believe in the resourcefulness of wall street more than the ability of our government to regulate and make things "fair"

9/17/2008 3:15:37 PM

Quote :

"This is all a result of the housing sector. Do any of you disagree with that?"

no, don't agree.
see:

Quote :

"The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies. "

now a lot of this was brought on by the housing sector collapse, but had certain regulations not been removed, then the fallout from the housing collapse could have been much more tightly contained. As it turns out, though, companies (like AIG) who were invested in bad mortgages, had those investments insured by another branch of the same company, and were financing those investments through yet another branch of the same company. So by removing these banking/investing/insurance regulations, or artificial walls, the companies were allowed to engage in any number of conflict-of-interest-type activities, and also allowed them to hide poor decisions by shifting money around inside the company. In the end, leading to a much more opaque system that shareholders and the public at large (and the government) couldn't see into to see how bad things were really getting

9/17/2008 4:52:44 PM

ALL of this was brought on by the housing sector, agent.

Gamecat and nuts, do you both think obama is the best answer to the financial problems of this country?

9/17/2008 4:57:20 PM

that ties it up nice and neat with a little bow on top, but the economy is a bit more complicated than that. all of this shit is so interconnected that had it not been the housing sector this year, it would be some other shit that hit the fan next year and all these companies would still be in trouble because they are still playing fast and loose with the laws that are on the book, and taking advantage, against the shareholders long term interest, of laws that have been repealed.

9/17/2008 5:16:40 PM

Quote :

"We need Ron Paul..."

9/17/2008 5:18:08 PM

A President isn't an answer to this crisis.

The Primary Fund just broke the fuckin' buck!
http://consumerist.com/5051132/signs-of-the-apocalypse-even-money-market-funds-are-losing-money

9/17/2008 5:18:46 PM

Quote :

"Also, the fundamentals of the economy are strong."

eyedrb, you are a fucking idiot.

9/17/2008 5:37:45 PM

^ Speaking of...

For the record, the $1 NAV of a money-market mutual fund would be a "fundamental" of our economy. Breaking the buck is some serious shit. As is losing 7% of the Dow in 3 days.

9/17/2008 5:58:45 PM

Nice job Republicans. Get the fuck out of office

9/17/2008 6:18:42 PM

Quote :

"We need Ron Paul..."

9/17/2008 7:12:58 PM

^^^^ It really depends on how you choose to define fundamentals.

Fundamentals are a very vague word that could mean anything.

The economy is in a delicate position now and using platitudes to discuss those problems is pretty useless at this point.

[Edited on September 17, 2008 at 7:13 PM. Reason : ]

9/17/2008 7:13:00 PM

how so 420. Me saying you are a fucking idiot, is hardly a point, just an observation.

Unemployment is low, exports are up. How is this affecting you 420? Other than falling for talking points.

Why are these financials having trouble now 420? In your opinion, anything to do with housing?

9/17/2008 7:13:21 PM

^ "The number of newly laid off people signing up for jobless benefits last week climbed to its highest point in more than six years as companies cut back given the faltering economy. "
- http://www.cnbc.com/id/26069928

You need to find a better source for your talking points.

And high exports is usually caused by a weak dollar, which is a sign of less-than-ideal domestic conditions (ie it's better for businesses than people). http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/18/business/18export.php

But, investments, which much of the US economy and people's savings are based on, are sinking across the board (venture capital funding decreases with bad investment atmosphere, for example).
- http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/2008/09/16/aig-lehman-subprime-ent-fin-cx_go_0916askanexpertokunbovarnickgrowneycrisis.html

9/17/2008 7:19:32 PM

Quote :

"^^^^ It really depends on how you choose to define fundamentals. Fundamentals are a very vague word that could mean anything."

mhum.... did you lift this straight from John McCain?
The Daily Show quoted him yesterday defending his "the fundamentals are strong" statement. He was backpedaling with "what I meant was, that, the 'fundamentals', like the hard workers across the country, are still strong"

9/17/2008 7:29:52 PM

well I was waiting for 420 moron, but youll do.

"The number of newly laid off people signing up for jobless benefits last week climbed to its highest point in more than six years as companies cut back given the faltering economy. "

This is your quote correct? So I would take it that businesses arent taking in as much money and are cutting employees to remain profitable. Fair assumption?

I dont see our exports are going to be affected by the housing sector or the credit crunch. They may slow down as our economy slows and affects other countries economy/markets. However, they will still need our food and steel. imo


Did you really post that people arent investing as much? Well no shit, the market is down and there is uncertainty. Also, you have the fing presidential candidate comparing this to the great depression... Wall street hates uncertainty. Also, as predicted, the proposed increase in capital gains will cause people to not invest as much. Its scary thinking Obama and his spending might be taking office.

9/17/2008 7:32:38 PM

unemployment is currently 6.2% and rising. That isn't a good indicator.

9/17/2008 7:37:08 PM

Quote :

"Breaking the buck is some serious shit. As is losing 7% of the Dow in 3 days."

This is what has me scared as shit. Yeah, there have been bigger losses over shorter periods of time with full recovery. But I feel like there were far more self-correcting forces present in the market back then too.

Shit is dangerously unstable right now.

9/17/2008 9:06:28 PM

the market lost 23% in one day in 89. Just because you dont remember it doesnt mean it didnt happen.

BTW we are down 7% for the week.

Things might get worse still with the election coming up too. But im still putting my monthly money into index funds. The averages are still on my side.

9/17/2008 10:23:24 PM

Quote :

"But im still putting my monthly money into index funds."

I need to start doing that.

Quote :

"The averages are still on my side."

For the long haul, definitely. Index funds seem amazing. You mainly have to worry about total economic collapse.

9/17/2008 10:34:11 PM