|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 09/29/2008 : 19:35:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by calebjones1234
Because Obama promised during the debate to spend even more money that we do not have and does not exist, despite the economic circumstance. |
The hell he did. He said he would make cuts to his programs where appropriate. He just wasn't prepared to state any programs that he would outright eliminate yet.
Many people understand the idiocy of such a plan.
|
McCain didn't volunteer to eliminate any of his programs either. Your bullshit isn't going to fly here.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 19:40:19 [Permalink]
|
I'm finding calebjones1234 to be a less obnoxious version of Jerome. Yes, his English is better, and he doesn't use emoticons. But still. He makes pithy comments in stilted English which cryptically suggest all sorts of nefarious things, and does so in a condescending way.
Not discussion. Just cryptic hit-and-runs. |
|
|
|
calebjones1234
BANNED
95 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 19:43:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
[quote] At best we can expect to pass some legislation regulating this sort of thing so it doesn't happen again.
|
Legislation and regulation are the major cause for the current circumstance.
The government encouraged the making of bad loans for the purpose of allowing 'minorities' to own homes. Laudable goal, goals do not pay the bills.
Freddy and Fanny bought up all these bad loans, packaged with many good loans, because they knew that they were backed directly by the Federal government. They made a great deal of money in a short period of time, all with the backing of the government.
This was not a free market, it was the assumption of bad risk due to the fact that the risk takers knew that they personally would not being responsible for the risk.
This is a government scheme all the way around.
|
|
|
|
calebjones1234
BANNED
95 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 19:45:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by calebjones1234
Because Obama promised during the debate to spend even more money that we do not have and does not exist, despite the economic circumstance. |
The hell he did. He said he would make cuts to his programs where appropriate. He just wasn't prepared to state any programs that he would outright eliminate yet.
|
When asked what programs he would cut, Obama listed the new programs he would create, and the new spending in current programs he would implement.
Did you watch the debate? |
|
|
|
calebjones1234
BANNED
95 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 19:49:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
[quote]McCain didn't volunteer to eliminate any of his programs either. Your bullshit isn't going to fly here.
|
???
My bullshit?
I never attributed any such claim for McCain. Although, he did state that he would freeze the vast majority of government spending and would attempt to fight fraud in defense procurement.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 19:50:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by calebjones1234
The Federal Reserve, just an hour after the vote, created another new $630 Billion for the financial industry.
The vote was theater.
|
Actually, no news report is phrasing what happened like this at all. In fact, this report says you're completely wrong:| The Fed's expansion of liquidity, the biggest since credit markets seized up last year, came hours before the U.S. House of Representatives rejected a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry. |
So, yeah.
I admit that what's going on here is just beyond my expertise. So I'm lost. You like to talk as thought you have some firm grasp as to what's happening. Care to explain? In terms I'll understand? And without the ominous cryptic suggestions that the federal government is secretly pushing us into so shadow communist regime?
Or do you only work in the realm of the nefarious? |
|
|
|
calebjones1234
BANNED
95 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 19:52:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Not discussion. Just cryptic hit-and-runs.
|
I have not been cryptic in any way. You are making a play to have an excuse for running from the discussion. You are not fooling anyone.
|
| Edited by - calebjones1234 on 09/29/2008 19:55:27 |
|
|
|
calebjones1234
BANNED
95 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 19:54:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
[Actually, no news report is phrasing what happened like this at all. In fact, this report says you're completely wrong:
|
Did you read the article?
| The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system |
Originally posted by calebjones1234
The Federal Reserve, just an hour after the vote, created another new $630 Billion for the financial industry.
|
Look at that!!!
Exactly what I said!
|
| Edited by - calebjones1234 on 09/29/2008 19:56:00 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 19:58:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by calebjones1234
Legislation and regulation are the major cause for the current circumstance.
The government encouraged the making of bad loans for the purpose of allowing 'minorities' to own homes. Laudable goal, goals do not pay the bills.
Freddy and Fanny bought up all these bad loans, packaged with many good loans, because they knew that they were backed directly by the Federal government. They made a great deal of money in a short period of time, all with the backing of the government. |
OK, so it's not clear that you know what you're talking about. A sort of famous economist (free log-in may be required) wrote a few months back:But here's the thing: Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.
Partly that's because regulators, responding to accounting scandals at the companies, placed temporary restraints on both Fannie and Freddie that curtailed their lending just as housing prices were really taking off. Also, they didn't do any subprime lending, because they can't: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn't meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income. |
Oops. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 20:01:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by calebjones1234
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
[Actually, no news report is phrasing what happened like this at all. In fact, this report says you're completely wrong:
|
Did you read the article?
| The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system |
Originally posted by calebjones1234
The Federal Reserve, just an hour after the vote, created another new $630 Billion for the financial industry.
|
Look at that!!!
Exactly what I said! |
Except it's not; do you have trouble reading? You said "just an hour after" but the article said this happened "hours before" that. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 20:03:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by calebjones1234
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Not discussion. Just cryptic hit-and-runs. |
I have not been cryptic in any way. You are making a play to have an excuse for running from the discussion. You are not fooling anyone. |
Well, since I'm still posting replies to you, it's pretty clear that I'm not running. In fact, it's not clear what I'd be running from.
But speaking of running, curiously you haven't explained anything. Actually, that's not curious. It's entirely predictable. |
|
|
|
calebjones1234
BANNED
95 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 20:06:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by calebjones1234
Legislation and regulation are the major cause for the current circumstance.
The government encouraged the making of bad loans for the purpose of allowing 'minorities' to own homes. Laudable goal, goals do not pay the bills.
Freddy and Fanny bought up all these bad loans, packaged with many good loans, because they knew that they were backed directly by the Federal government. They made a great deal of money in a short period of time, all with the backing of the government. |
OK, so it's not clear that you know what you're talking about. A sort of famous economist (free log-in may be required) wrote a few months back:But here's the thing: Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.
Partly that's because regulators, responding to accounting scandals at the companies, placed temporary restraints on both Fannie and Freddie that curtailed their lending just as housing prices were really taking off. Also, they didn't do any subprime lending, because they can't: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn't meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income. |
Oops.
|
The quote is wrong.
Freddy and Fanny had about an 80 to 1 holdings ratio, this is in comparison to AIG which was about 30 to 1. The American government is currently buying up financial institutions and their holding on the cheap. This is possible because of the government's regulation and encouragement of bad business choices.
Corporatism is better known as Fascism.
|
|
|
|
calebjones1234
BANNED
95 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 20:11:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
[quote]Except it's not; do you have trouble reading? You said "just an hour after" but the article said this happened "hours before" that.
|
Are you this petty?
I said an hour after, and it was an hour before. So?
This has no relevance to the fact that $630 Billion of new money was pumped into the financial system no matter what the Congress did. The Congressional vote was theater. The money was delivered, was it not?
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 20:28:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by calebjones1234
Originally posted by moakley
[quote]
This is nuts. Why is this election still as close as it is?
|
Because Obama promised during the debate to spend even more money that we do not have and does not exist, despite the economic circumstance.
Many people understand the idiocy of such a plan.
|
And many people have no understanding of Keynesian theory.
And, of course, you fail to mention that Obama is planning on reducing the cost of various program. The war in Iraq to name only the most important one...
In fact, if I recall, Obama's budget is more balanced than McCain's (who rely on removing earmarks as a magical horn from where to get infinite amount of money).
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
calebjones1234
BANNED
95 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 20:50:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
And many people have no understanding of Keynesian theory. |
We are past the possible effectiveness of these ideas. We already have much too much money in circulation in relation to real wealth. This will be a major collapse of the American economy. They are only staling the end with the introduction of more new money.
|
| Edited by - calebjones1234 on 09/29/2008 20:52:42 |
|
|
 |
|
Bailout rejected by the House
