| Author |
|
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: 07 September 2008 at 12:52pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Well, a weak America is good for the rest of the world. You being from Ireland, so wanting a weak America, is no surprise.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Ferguson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 March 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 6782
|
| Posted: 07 September 2008 at 12:54pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
You being from Ireland, so wanting a weak America, is no surprise.
*****
I don't want a weak America. A weak American economy affects the world economy. I just don't want an America going in guns blazing and condescending to the "little people" and thinking they know what's best for us.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Christopher Alan Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 October 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2787
|
| Posted: 07 September 2008 at 1:01pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
It's almost as if they voted for economic depression and war
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We aren't even in a recession where do you get depression from?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Greg Reeves
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 February 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1396
|
| Posted: 07 September 2008 at 1:02pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| I can't imagine any American who wouldn't feel the same way. |
|
|
See, I think you underestimate how many citizens like America being the world power it is. I'd much rather leaving other countries to do the policing of the world. If a majority of nations don't agree with something America is doing, shouldn't we reconsider that thing? Just because we have more military power doesn't mean our way is the right way. This type of "patriotism" really bothers me; it used to be that it meant making our nation the best it can be, now it seems to mean making the world the way we want it (and if a citizen disagrees, they're not patriotic). I believe Obama's administration would change that.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: 07 September 2008 at 1:14pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Greg, when I say a strong America, I don't mean going out guns blazing. I mean we should take care of America first. That means we should be concerned about our own borders and what goes on within them. In my mind, we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Unfortunately we did, so we have to make sure we don't leave them in worse shape than we went in. If the rest of the world is bothered by something we do within our own borders then too bad.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Greg Reeves
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 February 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1396
|
| Posted: 07 September 2008 at 1:19pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Ah, and I do agree with you there. I'm still upset (especially at this time of year) that the government doesn't put a few billion into restoring the wetlands to reduce the destruction of hurricane landfalls instead of spending it elsewhere in the world to improve other nations.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Vinny Valenti
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8441
|
| Posted: 07 September 2008 at 1:20pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Michael Retour wrote:
You know, I wonder why the American people reelected Bush the second
time when they knew his policies and what they had brought us the first
time.
It's almost as if they voted for economic depression and war. |
|
|
The economy wasn't so much of an issue in 2004 - gas prices were lower (as well as items that relied on fuel - like, say, food) and nobody on either side of the aisle was considering that the crazy boom in real estate prices going on then would have dire consequences.
It didn't help that the whole Democratic thrust of the 2004 election was not really "vote for our guy" but instead "vote against their guy". Kerry's "global test" remarks made him look weak as well - people took it as if he wanted to ask other nations' permission first before defending ourselves.
This time around, there's a bit more of "vote for our guy" on the Democratic side, I'll admit. But they still seem to be pushing the "vote against a 3rd Bush term" when Bush isn't even running. Hell, up until this election season, even Democrats didn't have that many bad things to say about McCain. Kerry was even considering him as his running mate! So now it's all up for grabs. I don't think that a Democratic victory in '08 is assured as the Pro-bama people like to think. Many of those people thought that Kerry was sure to win in '04 as well.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Retour
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 932
|
| Posted: 07 September 2008 at 1:23pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
First of all, the government could be honest and state 'we don't count
the people who have run out of benefits' couldn't they? They
could estimate that figure couldn't they? Why not announce
that as the unemployment figure? Why don't they? What sort of
accounting is that? You're actually arguing the point the government doesn't know? Please show me the number of people who
have been dropped from the unemployment numbers in the latest report
issued by the BLS.
"Tell me all about it, outsider. You know, if you and all the other
'outsiders' would take a day off from protesting the World Bank and get
yourself laid, you'd all feel a whole lot better about life. You'll
see, and you'll thank me for the suggestion."
I've been married 23 years and that sort of insult really isn't
called for. Argue the point Michael and let's not get into the personal
because it doesn't make your argument for you. It weakens any point you're trying to make.
In the 1950s & 1960s (despite recessions in 1953 & 1957) it generally took one wage earner to support a family
(perhaps someone had a side job). I am talking about the average middle class
family. That no longer is possible. We don't need to go to the
equivalent of ENRON-style accounting, like they do over at the BLS or the Fed, to prove that. People remember. People here, and elsewhere are old enough to remember their mother being home and dad working and having a comfortable life, college education, etc. on one job. My father was in finance, in varying positions, and didn't make a large sum of money but we were middle class and not upper middle class either but supported a home, two cars, three children and my mother never had to work. This was the same for my friends, my wife's family, etc. Can't you remember those days?
One could also compare how long it took a worker, on average, to pay off a new car or a home in 1955, or 1965, compared to today.
You talk about prosperity but isn't it true that our so-called
prosperity is funded by nations poorer than our own?
These poorer nations we take welfare from have to keep
on doing it too because the dollar is the reserve currency. If these nations were to start selling their Treasuries what would happen? I am
sure these countries don't like that one bit especially when they see no solutions
coming from the United States and as the financial cancer continues to
spread and grow. Denmark's recent banking collapse is a case in point: The Danish National Bank "nationalized" Roskilde Bank, one of the nation's largest
banks because after the regulators went over the books they found out it was insolvent.
"Tell me all about it, outsider. You know, if you and all the other
'outsiders' would take a day off from protesting the World Bank and get
yourself laid, you'd all feel a whole lot better about life. You'll
see, and you'll thank me for the suggestion."
I am married (23+ years) and this sort of insult really isn't
called for. Argue the point Michael and let's not get into the personal
because it doesn't make your argument for you.
Yes, people knew Bear Stearns was in deep trouble way before there were
any official announcements (perhaps decades before).
The Fed has a secret list of "troubled" banks and that isn't news Michael. You can Google it and see all the news agencies reporting on this fact. Are they all wrong? Of course not. This list isn't news at all. The Fed won't release the list because they don't want a panic of depositors lined up, like at Countrywide etc. recently. That sort of thing tends to spread fast.
I'd rather we had a president that leveled with us and took the bull by the horn but we don't. We don't have a Congress that does that either.
CDOs? Derivatives now stand at roughly $183 trillion dollars and like CDOs these derivatives are not regulated: J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Bank of America, hold more of them and I believe JP accounts for nearly half.
Take Lehman, their insolvency is not reported in the States is it? It is reported elsewhere (at least, it was in Korea).
This "housing bubble" was just another scheme after the collapse of the
so-called tech bubble to keep the sinking ship floating a few days
more. The suckers have to be sold something for the thing to function
except now it is so big, so out of control, it can't be hidden from the
public eye anymore than the collapse of the economy can. That is why
you get the responses you do here, and elsewhere, about the economy.
People can not only smell the rot, they see it too. Enron etc. showed
people what's what to a certain extent. It isn't the "rogue trader"
but the very institutions themselves. Top-down.
You seem to assume Fed chiefs, like Greenspan (a Rand acolyte among other things), are sane. Is that correct? To me, Greenspan is crackers and he was instrumental in creating the financial collapse we are in now.
Alan lowered the Fed fund rates to 1%. Boy, they really had the printing presses rolling then! How come? Because the banking system needed an infusion of funds or it might have been lights out Irene.
Alan is now warning of double-digit declines in the value of homes but he said this in 2007 (I think): “I really didn't get it until very late in 2005 and 2006."
In other words, he is incompetent as an economist.
In 2004 (April?) he urged people that owned homes to shift from fixed to floating rate
mortgages (ARMs etc.), and in early 2005, he extolled the virtues of sub-prime
borrowing and the extending credit to unworthy borrowers. How come?
This is what "Bubbles" Greenspan had to say about it in April of 2005:
"Innovation has brought about a multitude of new products, such as
subprime loans and niche credit programs for immigrants. Such
developments are representative of the market responses that have
driven the financial services industry throughout the history of our
country … With these advances in technology, lenders have taken
advantage of credit-scoring models and other techniques for efficiently
extending credit to a broader spectrum of consumers. … Where once
more-marginal applicants would simply have been denied credit, lenders
are now able to quite efficiently judge the risk posed by individual
applicants and to price that risk appropriately. These improvements
have led to rapid growth in subprime mortgage lending; indeed, today
subprime mortgages account for roughly 10 percent of the number of all
mortgages outstanding, up from just 1 or 2 percent in the early 1990s."
That proves his incompetence once more. Greenspan was one of the engineers of the housing bubble, as he was of the derivatives market. He fought tooth and nail not to have regulations put upon his casino operations.
He 'got it' alright. He was for creating speculative bubble. He had no other ideas. He's bankrupt of ideas. Funny and tragic at the same time. 8000 people per day are losing their homes thanks to Greenspan's insanity (not that he was alone).
I am of the opinion many of these bankers, hedge fund boys, etc. need to be locked away in prison. They all knew exactly what they were doing. I don't find it amusing that innocent people are now being foreclosed on and we're at the edge of a precipice you call "prosperity" do you?
You never responded to the banking system's off-balance sheet liabilities. Why is that allowed, in your opinion? I have my own reasons but I want to hear your yours.
"Phillip
Bennett, CEO of Refco, Inc., a leading futures-trading firm, is
arrested for securities fraud, for allegedly cooking Refco's books to
mislead investors who bought nearly $600 million worth of the company's
stock when it went public in August. In February 2005, Refco had $150
million in equity suporting $49 billion worth of assets—i.e., 0.3% of
assets. As of February 2004, Refco had $69 billion in off-balance-sheet
derivatives contracts; in Febaury 2005, $127.5 billion; and in May
2005, $150 billion."
The above is sadly typical and it is coming home to roost as people look at their pensions go the way of the dodo bird etc. I wonder if soon the Post Office shall have posters of bankers instead of common thieves, murderers, etc. on the walls.
History does change you know.
Reality has a way of forcing change. Just ask the Georgians.
You want to see a chart of what the banks list as assets compared to their derivative portfolios? I have one someplace.
Anyway, I enjoy these conversations and would love to see some solutions out of the candidates.
I will keep personal insults out of this Michael. I think we can have a civil discussion.
I realize the chart below is a bit old but one can assume the amount of weeks it takes to pay for a stay at the hospital has only gone up since then (the BLS is good for something if not unemployment numbers).
Edited by Michael Retour on 07 September 2008 at 1:39pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Christopher Alan Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 October 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2787
|
| Posted: 07 September 2008 at 1:25pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Today's Gallop poll has McCain at +3
The Real Clear Politics Average has Obama at +.08
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/ge neral_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
Edited by Christopher Alan Miller on 07 September 2008 at 1:27pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike O'Brien
Byrne Robotics Member
Official JB Historian
Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10927
|
| Posted: 07 September 2008 at 1:25pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
So it was Bullshit as usual.
Source? You're better than that. I pity you.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike O'Brien
Byrne Robotics Member
Official JB Historian
Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10927
|
| Posted: 07 September 2008 at 1:29pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
One notes that Al Cook cites a Canadian source because... (sit down for it...) he's Canadian.
Vinny - you bring up a good point, but all things considered, with Bush being one of the, if not the least popular President in American history, and certainly aspects of the citizenry suffering through his mistakes on a day to day basis, it only makes sense to campaign as "we're not that guy".
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Vinny Valenti
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8441
|
| Posted: 07 September 2008 at 1:38pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Yes, but since "that guy" isn't up for re-election anyway, I'd say that the Dems should tread carefully about how hard they push that element, since McCain can (not as) easily say "I'm not that guy either".
Dems were never really had good things to say about Bush, but there were a fair amount that until fairly recently did have some good things to say about McCain. I just think pushing the "third Bush term" aspect can backfire if gone too far.
Edited by Vinny Valenti on 07 September 2008 at 1:39pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
