28 Apr 10
It's a politically savvy move for the Dems to get behind this finance reform objective. They played the cards that the GOP would initially oppose it, creating a picture for the USA populace that the GOP is backing the bad guys.
The Democrats would love it if the GOP continues to oppose this into November. The GOP will soon give in becuase again of the political fallout.
Oh the reform bit? That's just a horse (or donkey) to ride to gain political points.
28 Apr 10
Originally posted by badmoonI can't aruge with any of this.
It's a politically savvy move for the Dems to get behind this finance reform objective. They played the cards that the GOP would initially oppose it, creating a picture for the USA populace that the GOP is backing the bad guys.
The Democrats would love it if the GOP continues to oppose this into November. The GOP will soon give in becuase again of the p ...[text shortened]... lout.
Oh the reform bit? That's just a horse (or donkey) to ride to gain political points.
28 Apr 10
First, the political attack against GS is all grandstanding.
Second, GS did not cause the financial collapse, although government failed to do its essential jobs (maybe it should focus more on saving money to smooth cycles than on giving everything to everyone on borrowed money), it's like the robber blaming the homeowner for the robber getting beat up in the home he was robbing, or blaming the rich neighbors... it's more the government's failure to do its essential government jobs than the individual market participants.
Third, Obama is done with healthcare priorities, now he knows elections are coming up and he took a big hit on the polls, as did his political partners in crime, so they are grandstanding for politics.
Anyone question any of this?
28 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusFor GS to have made money in the worst econmic crisis since the Great Depression red flags must be raised. So who else benefited from the mess? It seems to me that Obama and company did. Other than that I don't know of anyone. Together, they are on a short list of individuals who benefited from the collapse of the economy. Ignore the red flags if you must. But it simply does not end there. Together both Obama and company and GS stand to make a klling with cap-and-trade. The sickening part is with both scenerios they are feeding off the wealth of the average Joe.
First, the political attack against GS is all grandstanding.
Second, GS did not cause the financial collapse, although government failed to do its essential jobs (maybe it should focus more on saving money to smooth cycles than on giving everything to everyone on borrowed money), it's like the robber blaming the homeowner for the robber getting beat u al partners in crime, so they are grandstanding for politics.
Anyone question any of this?
28 Apr 10
Originally posted by whodeyDon't just buy the B.S. that sky-is-falling chicken little types can come up with as causes for the great depression. NO, it was not some evil cabal of bankers that created the great Recession (or the Great Depression for that matter).
For GS to have made money in the worst econmic crisis since the Great Depression red flags must be raised. So who else benefited from the mess? It seems to me that Obama and company did. Other than that I don't know of anyone. Together, they are on a short list of individuals who benefited from the collapse of the economy. Ignore the red flags if you mus ...[text shortened]... The sickening part is with both scenerios they are feeding off the wealth of the average Joe.
There are ALWAYS smart investors who make the right bets, and even more lucky ones. It's incredibly EASY to make money in a bad economy, as easy as betting on the right sports team or underdog, meaning that an idiot sometime has a 50/50 chance and a genius sometimes has a 50/50 chance, but usually the sports genius is more likely to make more right bets.
Goldman Sachs, like it or not, is in the business of investment banking, and that takes some financial geniuses to build a workforce with the kind of reputation of Goldman Sachs. Yes, all businesses push some sort of envelope to keep money in their pockets (a fool and his money are soon parted), but they did not cause the recession. Maybe they allowed one hand to bet against one thing. Maybe they allowed another hand to push a different bet. Maybe yet a third hand (or lets call it another investment vehicle) broke even and yet another made more money and yet another lost some of that. They spread their risks, were responsible to make their own bets and to sell instruments that allowed their clients to choose their own risks, and now they have Obama Pelosi Reid and Dodd trying to call the market participant the powerful cabal of bankers that ruined their beloved country (pause for applause from constituants)...
28 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by eljefejesusI didn't say that GS caused the recession. I said that they positioned themselves to benefit from it. Who else saw this coming? Name one other corporation that made money off this credit crisis.
Don't just buy the B.S. that sky-is-falling chicken little types can come up with as causes for the great depression. NO, it was not some evil cabal of bankers that created the great Recession (or the Great Depression for that matter).
There are ALWAYS smart investors who make the right bets, and even more lucky ones. It's incredibly EASY to make m ...[text shortened]... l cabal of bankers that ruined their beloved country (pause for applause from constituants)...
So who else saw this coming? It seems to me that Barney Frank overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should have had a pretty good idea. In fact, before the credit crisis BArney was taking some heat from onlookers who were worried about the state of their books. He then vehemently denied any problems and did NOTHING to prevent the crisis from occuring.
So what am I saying? I am saying that it entirely possible that the powers that be in both government and the corporate world saw what was coming and did NOTHING to stop it. In fact, they used it for their advantage. What is even more interesting is that they are poised to make even greater fortunes together at the expense of the average Joe once again through cap-and-trade.
What is known from these hearings, however, is that GS knew that they were selling their investers a bill of goods so they could profit. They are part of the ilk that makes this world such a wonderful place to live. You then have Barney Frank and company in the same boat with GS. Either he was inept, or corrupt. Of course, it does not help matters knowing he was having a sexual relationship with the CEO of Freddie Mac while all this was going on now does it? The contributions he received from them is just icing on the cake. If nothing else, GS and Barney Frank should go to the mat for what they have done. Agreed? Just don't expect it to happen.
28 Apr 10
Originally posted by whodeyWhen did it become suspect to make money?
For GS to have made money in the worst econmic crisis since the Great Depression red flags must be raised. So who else benefited from the mess? It seems to me that Obama and company did. Other than that I don't know of anyone. Together, they are on a short list of individuals who benefited from the collapse of the economy. Ignore the red flags if you mus ...[text shortened]... The sickening part is with both scenerios they are feeding off the wealth of the average Joe.
Why does it matter that there was an economic crisis? If things cost go down in value, they cost less to buy so certainly it makes sense someone could make money.
If a commodity like oil became cheaper and a seller made money, wouldn't that make sense.
28 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusLMAO!!!!!!
Don't just buy the B.S. that sky-is-falling chicken little types can come up with as causes for the great depression. NO, it was not some evil cabal of bankers that created the great Recession (or the Great Depression for that matter).
There are ALWAYS smart investors who make the right bets, and even more lucky ones. It's incredibly EASY to make m ...[text shortened]... l cabal of bankers that ruined their beloved country (pause for applause from constituants)...
Goldman Sach's "financial geniuses" managed their investments soooooooooooo wisely that they needed to beg the US government for $12.9 billion to avoid well-deserved bankruptcy and financial ruin.
EDIT: Actually Goldman Sach's got $24 billion; $10 billion in TARP money and $14 billion from the government due to its worthless contracts with insolvent AIG.
28 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by badmoonObviously, you don't have a single clue as to what the reform bills are attempting to do.
It's a politically savvy move for the Dems to get behind this finance reform objective. They played the cards that the GOP would initially oppose it, creating a picture for the USA populace that the GOP is backing the bad guys.
The Democrats would love it if the GOP continues to oppose this into November. The GOP will soon give in becuase again of the p ...[text shortened]... lout.
Oh the reform bit? That's just a horse (or donkey) to ride to gain political points.
28 Apr 10
Originally posted by no1marauderA reason why I'd like to see the Tea Party stage a huge rally at Wall St and focus all their venom on Goldman Sachs:
LMAO!!!!!!
Goldman Sach's "financial geniuses" managed their investments soooooooooooo wisely that they needed to beg the US government for $12.9 billion to avoid well-deserved bankruptcy and financial ruin.
EDIT: Actually Goldman Sach's got $24 billion; $10 billion in TARP money and $14 billion from the government due to its worthless contracts with insolvent AIG.
Both whodey and no1marauder would likely show up and march together side by side. Anything that could unite such disparate voices would be something worth watching.
28 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Melanerpeswhodey initially supported the bailout and complained loudly that the Democrats would let the economy be ruined for purely partisan reasons. When the majority of Republicans in the House initially voted against the Bush bailout, he had a surprising epiphany.
A reason why I'd like to see the Tea Party stage a huge rally at Wall St and focus all their venom on Goldman Sachs:
Both whodey and no1marauder would likely show up and march together side by side. Anything that could unite such disparate voices would be something worth watching.
9/24/08
whodey: McCain estimates that if NO plan is implemented that the financial consequence for doing nothing will be catastrophic. Now lets step back and watch as the Dems politicize the situation and do NOTHING and see if he was right.
28 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyIndeed - no1marauder is correct. On 9/24/08, even YOU were strongly in favor of bailing out the "rich folk".
You fail to see the timing of this. Obama is attempting to pass the finance reform bill that will empower government further over the private sector. Goldman is simply playing along. No doubt, once the finance reform bill is passed, Goldman will get a slap on the wrist and sit back and wait for cap-and-trade to pass so they can rack in even more money from vernment is still on the hook for trillions more dollars to clean up their mess.
Brilliant!!
So if even a conservative such as yourself was backing the bailout, you can see why we need to enact reforms to ensure that we have a better way to deal with banks and others that are "too big to fail". Clearly, this is going to have to involve empowering government in some way. Or should we do nothing and just wait for the next crisis where we ALL will agree to another bailout.
What's your alternative?
29 Apr 10
Originally posted by whodeyWhodey, whodey, whodey, always typing before thinking.
I didn't say that GS caused the recession. I said that they positioned themselves to benefit from it. Who else saw this coming? Name one other corporation that made money off this credit crisis.
So who else saw this coming? It seems to me that Barney Frank overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should have had a pretty good idea. In fact, before the cr ...[text shortened]... Frank should go to the mat for what they have done. Agreed? Just don't expect it to happen.
Haven't you read the many posts citing such people as Roubini for predicting the crisis.
If nobody was making money from predicting the credit crisis (or at least betting on there being rough days in 2008), then do you think the SEC would have bothered to ban short-selling on 10/1/08?
"Temporary prohibition of short selling in financial companies. This order will be extended beyond its currently scheduled expiration, to allow time for completion of work on the anticipated passage of legislation. It will expire at 11:59 p.m. ET on the third business day after enactment of the legislation, but in any case no later than 11:59 p.m. ET on Oct. 17, 2008.
Temporary requirement that institutional money managers report to the SEC their new short sales of certain publicly traded securities. This order will also be extended, to 11:59 p.m. ET on Oct. 17, 2008, but the Commission intends that the order will continue in effect beyond that date without interruption in the form of an interim final rule. The Commission will seek comments on all aspects of the anticipated rulemaking. Disclosure under the emergency order will be made only to the SEC.
Temporary easing of restrictions on the ability of securities issuers to repurchase their securities. This order will be extended beyond its currently scheduled expiration, to 11:59 p.m. ET on Oct. 17, 2008.
In addition to these emergency orders, the Commission recently has taken action to strengthen the existing ban on naked short selling and to increase the penalties against naked short selling. "
GS and Barney Frank can be investigated just as anyone else, but let's be honest here and admit that the current investigation is politically motiviated. GS didn't go along with all of Obama's post-bailout plans at one point. Here comes their cumuppence (predictable... by some of us anyway)
29 Apr 10
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're gonna need another edit.
LMAO!!!!!!
Goldman Sach's "financial geniuses" managed their investments soooooooooooo wisely that they needed to beg the US government for $12.9 billion to avoid well-deserved bankruptcy and financial ruin.
EDIT: Actually Goldman Sach's got $24 billion; $10 billion in TARP money and $14 billion from the government due to its worthless contracts with insolvent AIG.
Goldman Sachs would have survived, but the US government simply got all major investment banks to agree to take the money so the deal wouldn't stigmatize the few "problem banks" that did take the money.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june09/bankbailout_04-14.html
"JEFFREY BROWN: And you and your colleagues reported this morning that Goldman Sachs' CEO Lloyd Blankfein had told this to President Obama several weeks ago, right?
DEBORAH SOLOMON: Right. Yes, in a meeting that the president had with bank CEOs to sort of talk about the bank bailout, Mr. Blankfein raised this and said banks that are healthy should be able to pay it back.
And the government is in somewhat of a quandary, because the previous plan, which was started under President Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, called for these banks to keep the capital, partly as a way to prop up the financial sector by infusing healthy banks, those with enough capital, to have, you know, money, but also helping give cover to some of the weaker banks that weren't at death's door but needed a little bit of help.
This way, everybody was sort of egalitarian. It was very equal. You couldn't tell who was weak or who was strong. Everybody was getting the money.
But in February when the stimulus bill passed, there was a provision in there that allowed the banks to get out of TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Essentially, they said, if you don't want to comply with these restrictions, fine, you can get out of TARP.
That wasn't what Treasury had intended. And so now they basically have no choice but to allow healthy banks to get out of the TARP program."
29 Apr 10
4 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesI admit that I was duped. At first, people, like myself, were outraged that they wished to bail these banks out. Then as they saw their IRA's cut in half overnight, people began to get a little nervous and caved. It was tantamount to them putting a gun to our heads and saying, "Give us your money or else!!" Looking back I admit I was wrong, however, I dare say I was coerced into my original position.
Indeed - no1marauder is correct. On 9/24/08, even YOU were strongly in favor of bailing out the "rich folk".
So if even a conservative such as yourself was backing the bailout, you can see why we need to enact reforms to ensure that we have a better way to deal with banks and others that are "too big to fail". Clearly, this is going to have to involve ...[text shortened]... for the next crisis where we ALL will agree to another bailout.
What's your alternative?
The problem with those on the left is that they blame the private sector for everything. In fact, I challenge the noiion it would have happened at all if it were not for the creations of such government bohemouths as Fannie and Freddie and the CRA act which forced lenders to give loans to people who were high risk. All they know to do is blame the private sector and say they simply are not regulated and/or tinkered with enough. I say that no amount of regulations or tinkering will avert another crisis. In fact, they probably will no doubt help lead to the next crisis.