- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
While it seems 100% economic, politics play a big roll.
Which of the two candidates can turn that mess created by Bush around?
Which of the two candidates can turn that mess created by Bush around?
That Market on Wall Street
- Thread starter Joesitz (RIP)
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Country
-
Not if you believe Warren Buffett. He thinks it is a huge money maker. The government buys something that yields 10%(adjusted for losses) and borrows money via Treasury bonds for 3 to 5%. Like any other buyout, you get something. The question is, what will we pay for these mortgages. If we pay 50 to 60% of face value, there is a good chance we will make money, because people are only defaulting on perhaps 5 to 10% of them at this time.
We won't know whether it was a huge loser or a huge gainer for years though.
However, Buffett knows a lot more about money that I do. And he has placed a huge bet, both of his own money, and of other Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, via his Goldman Sachs buy, that this is a good deal.
Really, the only role both presidential candidates have is to stand with Bush, look presidential, and buy into the final solution to restore confidence in the markets as quickly as possible. The heavy load carrying & bargaining needs to be done by the financial experts in both parties and the administration. Neither Obama nor McCain is on any of the finance or banking committees, so neither is a huge part of the solution itself, only of the selling of the solution.
We won't know whether it was a huge loser or a huge gainer for years though.
However, Buffett knows a lot more about money that I do. And he has placed a huge bet, both of his own money, and of other Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, via his Goldman Sachs buy, that this is a good deal.
Really, the only role both presidential candidates have is to stand with Bush, look presidential, and buy into the final solution to restore confidence in the markets as quickly as possible. The heavy load carrying & bargaining needs to be done by the financial experts in both parties and the administration. Neither Obama nor McCain is on any of the finance or banking committees, so neither is a huge part of the solution itself, only of the selling of the solution.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I have no doubt that Warren Buffet will land on his feet. The rest of us, I'm not so sanguine.
Maybe I'm crazy, but am I the only one who thinks that the U.S. government cannot, year after year, spend $482,000,000,000 more than it takes in -- oops, make that $1,182,000,000,000 -- and hope that the bill will never come due?
If we keep this up we won't be able to afford any more wars. (Nah, we'll always have money for that.)
As for the financial experts in both parties and the administration, these are the same people who encouraged the lending industry to throw many centuries of banking experience and common sense out the window and hitch their wagons to the bizarre policy of lending money and extending credit to borrowers who have no prospect of being able to repay the loan.
But lucky for us, John McCain is suspending his campaign and jetting to Washington to save the day.
Maybe I'm crazy, but am I the only one who thinks that the U.S. government cannot, year after year, spend $482,000,000,000 more than it takes in -- oops, make that $1,182,000,000,000 -- and hope that the bill will never come due?
If we keep this up we won't be able to afford any more wars. (Nah, we'll always have money for that.)
As for the financial experts in both parties and the administration, these are the same people who encouraged the lending industry to throw many centuries of banking experience and common sense out the window and hitch their wagons to the bizarre policy of lending money and extending credit to borrowers who have no prospect of being able to repay the loan.
But lucky for us, John McCain is suspending his campaign and jetting to Washington to save the day.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
I know the bail out is very unpopular, but I think it's true that at this point there is no choice. The question now is not whether to throw that money at Wall street, but how to do it - both in terms of what would be best for the economy, and what would have the best chance of eventually recovering the money. Some suggestions, of course, have been populist and ridiculous; for example, while I do support limiting the pay of top executives, setting that limit at $400K (president's salary) is ridiculous, no talented exec would live in NYC for that money (besides, last time I checked, the presidential $400K also came with room & board, not exactly free in NYC those days). The big question in how the bailout is structured is who ends up with those "toxic assets". While on the surface of things, it seems to be a good (or at least a "fair") idea to make the banks continue to be responsible for them, it is true that such solution has been disastrous for Japan, so I am not sure I want to see the government take this road. Oh, and BTW, let's not hang this all on Bush - much of deregulation happened during the Clinton years, and while it was certainly driven by the Republicans, the president did not exactly oppose it either.
I also agree with Doris's assessment regarding confidence building being of most essence at this point. Investors are now just panic-driven, selling off stocks even in companies where fundamentals continue to be strong (Goldman-Sachs, for one).
I also agree with Doris's assessment regarding confidence building being of most essence at this point. Investors are now just panic-driven, selling off stocks even in companies where fundamentals continue to be strong (Goldman-Sachs, for one).
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
I'm with Obama who wants to ensure any bail out must not be at the expense of the tax payers. Let those magnificent CEOs foot the bill.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080926/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_debate
Now it seems that Obama is standing on the top on this debate about the debate. Will McCain face the challenge tonight?
Now it seems that Obama is standing on the top on this debate about the debate. Will McCain face the challenge tonight?
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
Hmmm... I do agree with Obama on the bailout, but I disagree with you on your analysis of Obama's plan. He wants to structure the bailout in a way to make it possible for government (which is nowadays referred to as "the tax payers") to recoup its money. However, the immediate hit would certainly be on the treasury, nothing to be done about that. In fact, Obama's strength IMO has always been his practicality (I never bought the "he's naive" argument); he know the treasury is the only entity who can fund this, and is therefore supporting the plan. CEOs are not funding anything under the proposal, there are just some safeguards in place to make sure they do not profit further because of fit.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
You meant the Reagan years, right? The Great Deregulator?
http://www.headybrew.net/images/content/budget_deficit_or_surplus.gif
The Reagan administration originated what quickly became the New Republican, or NeoCon, mantra: "Only a fool pays his bills. The winner is the person who dies in the most debt. This means he has lived the Life of Reilly his whole life on other people's money."
By this measure, in a couple of months George Bush will ride off into the polictical sunset as the biggest Winner ever in the history of the world.
He even bought himself every despot's dream -- a war of his very own. "How will I pay for it? Ha ha, what a silly question."
By the way, in the graph of the national debt, note that $700 billion is so large it is off even the Bush-Reagan chart -- and this is $700 billion added on to the $400 billion deficit that the next president would have inherited anyway.
This is a big Ponzi scheme. I have no assets, no credit, no job, but I want to live in a half-million dollar house. No problem, the bank gives me the money (and raises my credit card limit as an extra bonus). The bank's in the clear because they sell the worthless mortgage to an investment bank, who sells it to a bigger investment bank, who sells it to a global investment consortium. Nobody ever pays and everyone gets rich....Except the sucker at the end of the line -- us.
The Bush solution to all this borrow, borrow, borrow and never pay back -- borrow $700 billion more.
Who are we borrowing from? The Chinese? The very financial institutions that we are bailing out? The U.S. taxpayers of the year 2050, after we are all all safely in the grave, counting our "winnings?"
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
^ What this article fails to mention is that this bill -- the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill -- passed the Senate on almost 100% party lines. The vote was 54-44, with only one Democrat in favor (Hollings of South Carolina.)
Every Repubican in the Senate voted for the bill, including the Senator from Arizona, John McCain. (Joe Biden, D-Del, voted nay.) Here is the roll call.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105
The sponsors were Phil Gramm (R-Texas, now an advisor to the McCain campaign) in the Senate and James Leach (R-Iowa) and Thomas Bliley (R-Virginia) in the House (Leach is now the head of "Republicans for Obama"
)
I suppose you could blame Clinton for not fighting harder against the Republican majority in both houses. He could have vetoed the bill and forced them to work harder to get it through.
Every Repubican in the Senate voted for the bill, including the Senator from Arizona, John McCain. (Joe Biden, D-Del, voted nay.) Here is the roll call.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105
The sponsors were Phil Gramm (R-Texas, now an advisor to the McCain campaign) in the Senate and James Leach (R-Iowa) and Thomas Bliley (R-Virginia) in the House (Leach is now the head of "Republicans for Obama"
)I suppose you could blame Clinton for not fighting harder against the Republican majority in both houses. He could have vetoed the bill and forced them to work harder to get it through.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
The Reagan Story,at least the part that turned me off him.
When I was working, I got his gift of $200 Tax Rebate. Where did he get the $200? He got it from closing down hospitals for the mentally retarded. He thought the families of these sickly individuals should take care of them, and those without families should be cared for by Churches.
Well, here I go again, the Churches, took them in with cots in their vestibules for about 3 weeks and then that was the end of them and the beginning of the homeless.
This was REAGAN at his finest, and my tax rebate went to the chariites for the homeless.
Bush is in business to protect business and the CEOs must not be excluded from any monies.
When I was working, I got his gift of $200 Tax Rebate. Where did he get the $200? He got it from closing down hospitals for the mentally retarded. He thought the families of these sickly individuals should take care of them, and those without families should be cared for by Churches.
Well, here I go again, the Churches, took them in with cots in their vestibules for about 3 weeks and then that was the end of them and the beginning of the homeless.
This was REAGAN at his finest, and my tax rebate went to the chariites for the homeless.
Bush is in business to protect business and the CEOs must not be excluded from any monies.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
MM, I did say in my original post on the subject - "while it was certainly driven by the Republicans, the president did not exactly oppose it either". So yeah, certainly it was not the fault of the Democrats as a party. However, it did fit nicely with Clinton's "triangulation" policy, so I do hold him somewhat accountable (though, certainly not nearly to the extent of the GOP).
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
As you all know the House rejected Bush's urgent plan to: (choose an object)
Rescue the stock market or to Bail Out the stock market
I would say it is more than semantics
Rescue the stock market or to Bail Out the stock market
I would say it is more than semantics
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Here in Michigan, McCain has been running a television ad for some time blaming "Barack Obama and congrssional liberals" for the nation's ever-worsening financial crisis.
Now he has changed it to blaming Obama for not persuading enough Democrats to support the bail-out to overcome all the Republicans who voted against it. (?)
Now he has changed it to blaming Obama for not persuading enough Democrats to support the bail-out to overcome all the Republicans who voted against it. (?)
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
Now I've seen Obama has a calm, clear mind and wisdoms on economy, national crisis, as well as foreign policies - yes, foreign policies! His actions in the past week has reassured people that he is a far better choice to take US out of this mess and restore the respect for US in the world - that's what you want, isn't it?! Give Obama a chance! I do hope that the American people could give him a chance to show them and the world that he has the abilities to be a great president.
On the contrary, McCain has wiped out the last hope from me, a conservative. Not to mention his choice of his running mate Sarah Palin whom I have never had any good impression from the beginning. She might be a good governor of Alaska, but her knowledge and her abilities are so far from qualifying to be a v.p. or possibly a president (scary thought). Do you want a hockey mom, a woman who is "like one of us" to be a vice president of this great country? It is a funny way of thinking, In my opinion. I do very much like to see a woman v.p. or a woman president, but not a woman like her.
I hope that congress could pass the bill on Thursday, a bill that no one likes, but there is no choice.
On the contrary, McCain has wiped out the last hope from me, a conservative. Not to mention his choice of his running mate Sarah Palin whom I have never had any good impression from the beginning. She might be a good governor of Alaska, but her knowledge and her abilities are so far from qualifying to be a v.p. or possibly a president (scary thought). Do you want a hockey mom, a woman who is "like one of us" to be a vice president of this great country? It is a funny way of thinking, In my opinion. I do very much like to see a woman v.p. or a woman president, but not a woman like her.
I hope that congress could pass the bill on Thursday, a bill that no one likes, but there is no choice.
Last edited:
Surely you are mistaken, Mathman. Don't you know that McCain has suspended his campaign for the good of the country? Those ads must be some kind of plot by the leftwing media jackals :sheesh:
Susan, who needs to go find a better dripping sarcasm icon
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
imo, the Bush Plan will aid the very people who got us into this mess, while the middle and lower class people must pay for it.
Even if passed, there is nothing that says it will be successful.
Even if passed, there is nothing that says it will be successful.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
The question that no one is facing up to is, where will this $700,000,000,000 come from?
In the presidential debate, both candidates were asked point blank, what federal programs will you cut to make up the difference? Both candidates, instead of addressing the question, listed all the programs that they won't cut.
What they will cut (read their lips) is taxes to pay for all this. McCain will make permanent the "temporary" Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and Obama promises to cut taxes by $1000 for the middle class.
So I suppsed the answer to the question, where will the money come from, is, it will come from the same place that the money came from to pay for the Iraq War. That is, the politicians hope that some time in the nebulous future (after they are retried from public office) money will fall from the skies like manna from heaven and pay the debts that we are racking up now.
One thing for sure: it can't come from the U.S. treasury. The amount of money in the U.S. treasury is negative 60 trillion dollars, counting the acknowledged domestic and foreign national debt and unfunded committments to medicare and social security. That's half a million dollars of debt for each for U.S. household.
In fact, there is serious talk among economists that the U.S. should just cancel the national debt. That is, declare bankruptcy, as everyone else must do in extremity if we can't pay our bills.
How did we get in this fix? Here are the percentage increases in the national debt incurred by recent presidents:
Reagan 189%
Bush 56% (in one term)
Clinton 36%
Bush 63%
National debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, in the last year of term in office:
Carter 33%
Reagan 53%
Bush 66%
Clinton 58%
Bush 65% (Right now we owe, to domestic and foreign creditors, 65% of the total value of all goods and services produced in the United States in a year.)
In the presidential debate, both candidates were asked point blank, what federal programs will you cut to make up the difference? Both candidates, instead of addressing the question, listed all the programs that they won't cut.
What they will cut (read their lips) is taxes to pay for all this. McCain will make permanent the "temporary" Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and Obama promises to cut taxes by $1000 for the middle class.
So I suppsed the answer to the question, where will the money come from, is, it will come from the same place that the money came from to pay for the Iraq War. That is, the politicians hope that some time in the nebulous future (after they are retried from public office) money will fall from the skies like manna from heaven and pay the debts that we are racking up now.
One thing for sure: it can't come from the U.S. treasury. The amount of money in the U.S. treasury is negative 60 trillion dollars, counting the acknowledged domestic and foreign national debt and unfunded committments to medicare and social security. That's half a million dollars of debt for each for U.S. household.
In fact, there is serious talk among economists that the U.S. should just cancel the national debt. That is, declare bankruptcy, as everyone else must do in extremity if we can't pay our bills.
How did we get in this fix? Here are the percentage increases in the national debt incurred by recent presidents:
Reagan 189%
Bush 56% (in one term)
Clinton 36%
Bush 63%
National debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, in the last year of term in office:
Carter 33%
Reagan 53%
Bush 66%
Clinton 58%
Bush 65% (Right now we owe, to domestic and foreign creditors, 65% of the total value of all goods and services produced in the United States in a year.)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
^ ^ ^
It's clear from your listing of the spendthrifts for the National Debt that the Republicans will spend BIGger than the Dems. Once they get a hold of a previous Demo credit, they are going to use it for their purposes which will always assist the wealthy. Remember, the sales tax was eliminated for the purchase of Yahts.
Bush, himself, knows the mess that his economics has led to this and he is laying low. In fact, he looks very tired and frail. He's made the mess and now it's a matter of laying low until Januay 1.
His record for 8 years has been absolutely the worst of any President beginning with going to war under false pretentious, his disregard of the Geneva Convention and all the evils a dictator would use, and now, the economy of the country is in peril. He claims to be religious.
By the way. Buffett is on PBS tonight. Must see that.
It's clear from your listing of the spendthrifts for the National Debt that the Republicans will spend BIGger than the Dems. Once they get a hold of a previous Demo credit, they are going to use it for their purposes which will always assist the wealthy. Remember, the sales tax was eliminated for the purchase of Yahts.
Bush, himself, knows the mess that his economics has led to this and he is laying low. In fact, he looks very tired and frail. He's made the mess and now it's a matter of laying low until Januay 1.
His record for 8 years has been absolutely the worst of any President beginning with going to war under false pretentious, his disregard of the Geneva Convention and all the evils a dictator would use, and now, the economy of the country is in peril. He claims to be religious.
By the way. Buffett is on PBS tonight. Must see that.
