Story Comments
Posted by: nostalgia 11 months, 3 weeks ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
80%
nostalgia11 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
67%
nostalgia11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But that's exactly the problem isn't it?
Reply
The Troubled Asset Relief Program never did anything with the "troubled assets" so we still have financial insitutions failing
Why not simply suspend the mark to market rule? Certainly would be cheaper than what they did that had no real effect
Now we have Paulson's right hand man Geitner set to become the new Sec of Treasury and a vote coming today in the Senate about releasing the last $350 billion with no strings attached again-
fiftynineComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, the money doesn't need to stay put. What the bailout needs is restriction on recipients' use of the money and accountability. I don't know what happened to the $300 billion for foreclosure relief passed last year...I imagine it was absorbed by the companies to add to their profits rather than used for actual relief for those who needed it. Just like the $350 billion given to the financial industry.
Reply-
57%
nostalgia11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The housing bailout program from last summer is just getting in gear - like most new govt programs it takes forever to get it rolling
Reply
That's why a massive bailout, if passed, won't even get started until the economy is starting to recover on its own
It will be more money thrown down a rathole
Have you looked at some of the things in the new bailout?-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you think the economy is going to recover on its own within the next six months (the period of time between when the bailout program was passed and now, when you say it's just getting in gear), you're severely underestimating the extent of the current problem.
Reply
I've looked at some of the things in the new bailout...but Congress is taking a much closer look at it than the $700 billion passed last year. With luck, the one that's eventually passed will include accountability and oversight.-
29%
nostalgia11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just heard that the Senate voted to release the next $350 billion - they never learn do they?
Reply
The next big bailout is supposed to be infrastructure
Not only will you have Federal bureuacrats writing regulations etc etc, you will have state and local officials involved
There will be contracts put out for bidding, so many minority contractors will need to be found, local regulations checked and permits processed and on and on
How quickly do you think that will be done?
I'm more inclined to think that it will be well over a year before one worker actually gets hired-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not sure whether they learn...I'll have to read up on the terms of the $350 billion released. Is there oversight built into the bill?
Reply
Infrastructure is not a bailout. It's much-needed repair of obsolete public works, without which citizens could be in immediate danger.
Do you believe there should be no bidding on those contracts, like those that went to military contractors in Iraq? That didn't save the taxpayers much, did it?-
-
-
0%
beavith111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the only thing that i'm advocating, with respect to the money, is to fix the problem, not just figure out who needs the money more.
Reply
the underlying problem is that all banks are broke, thanks to the CDO and CDSs. until those positions are unwound, we're just kidding ourselves.
with regard to iraq, the cost of the bailouts in the last year are certainly twice or three times the entire cost of 6 years of iraq. and the bailouts roll on.
i guess my plea is to get some perspective.-
100%
willottica11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the underlying problem is that all banks are broke, thanks to the CDO and CDSs.
Reply
I agree with you here. But those things didn't make money disappear. What they did was make profits seem much greater than they truly were, thus the heads of the banks were able to get themselves ridiculously large salaries and bonuses.
It seems the banks are NOT as profitable as they've been claiming to be, their profits were marginal, but by claiming to be super-profitable, those at the top were able to skim money. They skimmed so much that they took ALL the profits and more besides. Which is why they are now broke, they have, without knowing it, been taking huge losses for years because of executive overcompensation, and are only now realizing the "error."-
Neutral
beavith111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
that is the definition of bankrupt. when your liabilities exceed your assets and equity.
Reply
if we accept the general notion that CDOand CDS liability is $40-60T and the entire US economy GDP is (was) $13T, dithering over what the banks are worth and how profitable they are or may have been is pointless.
worse, throwing money at different aspects of the economy (banks to keep credit flowing) (auto companies to keep people employed)(home mortgages to keep people in their houses) is not addressing the problem. its ignoring it.
i'm not really disagreeing with you. i'm trying to get folks pointed at the REAL problem. i feel something like the little kid in the emperor's new clothes. why is this so obvious to me and evidently no one else?-
100%
willottica11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's obvious to a lot of us that the problem is not bankruptcy. The problem is overspending, underregulation, greed. And it's true, throwing money at banks is not going to solve any of their problems, it is, at best, a band-aid which may stem the bleeding while a solution to the larger problem can be found.
Reply
It's easy to recognize that an AIDS patient with a cut on his arm has bigger problems than the cut, but if he bleeds to death because the cut was never treated, then what was the point of trying to cure his AIDS?
I agree completely that the REAL problem is not a lack of capital flow or the decrease in home prices nor the increase in foreclosures. But these symptoms are all very serious, and can't be ignored to pursue the real problem. Neither can the real problem be ignored while just treating the symptoms. What is needed is a simultaneous focus on both bandaging the hemorrhaging system and finding the cause of the hemorrhage.
-
-
-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree that the real problems need to be fixed. Who created CDOs and CDSs, and why weren't they looked at more closely? I'd say the SEC and other regulatory agencies weren't doing their jobs.
Reply
And again, I'd hope that any future bailouts include restrictions and even partial ownership of the businesses that receive them, in order to recover some of the cost. This has worked in Europe...
-
-
-
-
50%
nostalgia11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Infrastructure is not a bailout. It's much-needed repair of obsolete public works, without which citizens could be in immediate danger"
Reply
Take a look at what is included if you believe this is an "infrastructure bailout"
You'll have to radically change the definition of infrastructure to accommodate the pork projects
For example:
Virtually everyone living in the United States would be affected by the plan. A $500 tax cut would reach 95 percent of workers and $1,000 for working couples. First-time home buyers purchasing homes between Jan. 1 and June 30 would get a $7,500 tax credit, and local school districts would be spared severe cuts as state and local governments budgets collapse — to the tune of $120 billion over the next two years. States would get $87 billion worth of help with their Medicaid budgets over the next two years.
But there's also money for fresh sod for the National Mall and millions of $40 coupons to help people adapt their old televisions for digital signals
The measure also contains about $90 billion for traditional infrastructure projects such as road and bridge repair and construction, modernizing federal building, clean water and flood control projects, and rail and mass transit construction.
$90 billion out of $825 billion for "traditional" infrastructure - aren't you impressed?-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Huh? I don't believe there is an "infrastructure bailout." I said spending on infrastructure is NOT a bailout. Money to be spent on the infrastructure projects you mentioned is not what I'd consider part of a "bailout," though it may be part of the package being debated.
Reply
"Pork" is a different matter. Some consider any spending that benefits only a certain Congressional district or state to be pork. I consider pork to be spending on unnecessary projects, such as the fresh sod you mentioned--but not the coupons to help poor people receive digital signals, which in today's information-dependent world are necessary. (On the other hand, the whole idea of forcing a switch to digital TV was an enormous boondoggle forced upon us by the FCC, that was meant to create more profit for media conglomerates by freeing up the airwaves for their private use.)
And no, I'm not happy with only $90 billion out of $825 billion being spent on infrastructure. Are you under the impression that I blindly support absolutely everything Obama says?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
75%
mesodude11 months, 3 weeks ago
-
75%
nostalgia11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Mesodud I could ask the same question
Reply
Why are liberals no longer concerned about deficits. That's all we heard about for the last 8 years.
Some of us didn't like the deficits, bailouts and stimulus packages for the last 8 years
Too bad you can't say the same with a straight face-
100%
dunkirk11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But the Dems are concerned with deficits. The problem is te mess Bush and the Republicans have left the economy in. Jobs are being lost at a faster rate then at any time since the great Depression, The Republicans here foreclosure relief and immediately start to stonewall sine its not going to corporations or the uber wealthy. Lets not forget the mess itself was creatred by a REPUBLICAN controlled congress that refiused to pass legislation calling for oversight of the financial industry. Follow the money.
Reply-
50%
beavith111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
it was the republican John Sununu that tried to pass a bill reigning in Freddie and Fannie in 2004. that was killed by none other than Chris Dodd (D-CT) in committee.
Reply
and Barney Frank and Chuckie Rangel were running interference in the House, seeing that they received some tidy campaign donations (in excess of what any republican got)from Freddie and Fannie.
the mess, as you say, isn't merely the republicans, dunkooky. the democrats are up to their nose in it, too. but, by all means, let's keep up with that helpful and wrong election rhetoric. there's plenty of catharsis in it.-
Neutral
dunkirk11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO. Well lets review. A republican submits a bill that was killed in committe by a Democrat in 2004. ROFLMAO, in 2004 the congress was REPUBLICAN controlled. Let me try to explain further since it seems to be eluding you, they had more votes on that committee then the democrats. What your saying is a Dem minority stopped a bill from reaching the floor against a Republican majority??? In case u didnt realize all it takes is a simple majority to get the bill to the floor. All it takes is the head of the committee (which btw was a REPUBLICAN since they held the majority in the Congress) to say lets vote, no filibuster. So maybe yoju can explain how a single Dem in a REPUBLICAN controlled committee was able to stop the bill??? ROFLMAO, so how ineffective are the REPUBLICANS???
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"What your saying is a Dem minority stopped a bill from reaching the floor against a Republican majority"
Reply
It's that pesky 60 votes to invoke cloture rule in the Senate
Better go read a little history on why bills don't come out of committee - if the minority party on the committee vote in lockstep against something, it will never get enough votes on the floor to invoke cloture
Why do you think the Democrats were hoping for a super majority in the Senate this last election???-
Neutral
dunkirk11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, lets review the REPUBLICANS were the MAJORITY party in the House and the Senate. The Dens never threatened a filibuster of that bill it never got out of sommittee because the Republicans didnt want it to. Plain and simple. Ther is NO filibuster in committee only on the floor and the Dems never threatened a filibuster aginst this bill, the REPUBLICANS never pushed it out of committee becuase it called for increased oversight and regulation while Bush was pushing for LESS oversight and regulation,.
Reply-
0%
nostalgia11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And 2 years ago when Frank and dodd became chairman of the relevant committees they rushed to pass the legislation.
Reply
Seems they weren't really serious about oversight and regulation were they??
Didn't want to regulate their friends, did they?
Keep dreaming
Stop making excuses for them-
100%
dunkirk11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROflMAO, who kileld the bill? Who sat on the bill? Who during that period never brought the bill up for a vote. Oh yeah I remember the Democrats who were in the majority managed to stifle it. Great job, so how ineffective are the REPUBLICANS with control of the media, the house and senate cant get an oversight and regualtion bill out of the committe its in?? yes stop making excuses.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
beavith111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
be glad to.
Reply
it seems you aren't up to the task at hand.
a committee of 21 has 11 pubs and 10 dems. if the dems don't like a bill they twist the chairs arm. they can do that because it keeps them from squeezing one of the pub majority by offering favors on other bills that a particular pub may personally support.
as weird as it sounds, it makes some kind of sense because it keeps bills (generally) moving rather than stuck in a committee morass of conflicting directions.
unfortunately, when we find out after the fact that one group, specifically and intently, killed a bill that could have headed off this disaster, that's when finger pointing becomes appropriate. those democratic leadership folks absolutely deserve it. they can't just hide under rocks like their cockroach brethren.
mesodude makes a comment way up about how everyone has now become an economics wizard. i wouldn't say that's true, at least of me, because if i saw this coming, i'd have bailed too. right now, we've hit the iceberg and the ship has a list...-
Neutral
dunkirk11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, it sems the only problem with that is the REPUBLICANS ribber stamped everything during that period. If the bill was wanted by the Republicans there would be no arm twisting the billl makes it the floor and the right wing uses the media to publicize how the Dems are holding up progress (How quickly we forget). There was no "arm" twisting the bill was NOT wanted by the Republican ledership, it was felt it was needed when they were pushing for more deregulation and less oversight.
Reply-
Neutral
beavith111 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(sigh) killed in committee. just like the dems sat on judge nominations for most of Bush's second term.
Reply
while you're laughing, maybe you could pinch yourself , wakeup and smell the coffee.
did you just fall off the turnip truck yesterday?-
Neutral
dunkirk11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Killed in committee by a REPUBLICAN majority. Any way you want to spin it the Repubs HAD the majority and to get something out of committee takes a majority vote. Roflmao, thats right Beavis KILLED in A REPUBLICAN controlled committee BY REPUBLICANS.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why are liberals no longer concerned about deficits. That's all we heard about for the last 8 years."
Reply
--Except that you conveniently forget we began those 8 years with a SURPLUS (which cons love to claim is only because Republicans "forced" Clinton to *rein in spending*) and then promptly blasted through it once a Republican was in charge of the White House. And PLEASE shut up. The GOP is not in flames right now because only liberals thought your spending was out of control and irresponsible.
If you didn't like the deficits WHY did you keep voting for the same people over and over again, nostalgia? Exactly...STOP crying now that Democrats are going to be doing the spending. This is not Bush's daddy's recession we're talking about. As the saying goes, sometimes you have to spend money to make money or whatever and we're not turning off the spigot now that cons have sucked up all the money illegally and p*ssed it all away. GET SERIOUS. ;-(-
Neutral
nostalgia11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Any suplus, or deficit for that matter, is the result of actions in Congress - they control spending
Reply
Now who was it who controlled Congress when there was a surplus?
The last 8 years the Republicans in congress for the first 6 spent money like Democrats
For the last 2 years the Democrats simply spent like themselves
It will even be worse now that there is a Democratic Congress and a Democrat in the White House
"As the saying goes, sometimes you have to spend money to make money"
Hope you don't run yout personal finances using that saying
Throwing money away is never a too idea and won't get you to prosperity
-
-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Liberals are less concerned about deficits these days because deficit spending, while not anyone's favorite means of stimulating the economy, should be reserved for times when the economy is tanking...as it is today. This was not the case when Reagan, Bush Sr. and W. were doing their best to spend WAY beyond our means.
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In 2003, when the deficit was $377 billion, Rep. Barney Frank said Bush's dividend tax cut would have "negative long-term effects on the deficit," and that deficits "are over the long term a negative for the economy."
Reply
An even more notable switcheroo is New York Times columnist, Democratic mouthpiece and freshly minted Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. In column after column from 2001-2003 he denounced the Bush tax cuts for leading to "skyrocketing budget deficits."
In October 2008 Krugman wrote: "What we need right now is more government spending. . . . Now is not the time to worry about the deficit."
So now deficits don't matter when the Democrats are in control
Where do they get the money to spend - the job producing private sector. Drain money from the private sector and more jobs are lost
Spend more govt money to create jobs and drain more money from the private sector
Great cycle isn't it?-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Again, the economy did not need stimulation when Reagan, Bush and his father were proposing massive increases in deficit spending. It does now.
Reply
Krugman is a Keynesian. He deplores deficit spending when it's not absolutely necessary. He has not changed his mind--Keynes noted that deficit spending is desirable in very troubled economies.
When will you learn that "trickle-down" doesn't trickle down?-
-
-
100%
nostalgia11 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They need to set priorities - jobs and infrastructure
Reply
Put people to work and they pay taxes - Federal state and local
According to the articles I've been reading:
Details of the two-year package, which calls for $550 billion in new spending and $275 billion in tax relief
$275 billion in tax relief is Not "a tiny fraction of the entire plan"
It's 3 times larger than the amount being spent on infrastructure
Of the $550 billion in spending only $90 billion is for infrastructure
How do you put 3 million people back to work with that??
How do you repair and upgrade all of the infrstructure that needs attention?
This is the typical "give everyone something" and will never accomplish the goals of putting people back to work and upgrading infrastructure
Good grief Beau they have even included $1 billion to prepare for the 2010 census! Shouldn't that be in the regular Federal budget? Why is that part of the stumilus package?-
100%
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It has been estimated that it would cost $2 trillion to perform all the repairs the nation's infrastructure needs.
Reply
Would you be in favor of Congress spending that $2 trillion? I would.
Yes, the billion dollars to prepare for the census should be in the regular budget. (I wonder why it wasn't it Bush's budget...I'm sure you realize the budget submitted to Congress includes estimates for future years as well as monies to be spent in the current one.) But so what? Is it that important to you that this $1 billion is included in this massive spending package rather than being relegated to a separate bill?
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Beau789011 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'd like to tell Milton Friedman that, but he's not around to listen.
Reply
I'm not repeating campaign rhetoric. I'm telling you what's been made abundantly clear over the past 25 years. The middle class has shrunk, the lower class has grown, income inequity is at its highest levels since the Gilded Age, and median income adjusted for inflation has declined, all while GDP has grown.
Trickle-down does not work.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
Ciera-Marie
dunkirk
nonparted
DenCuddy
altnrg
cushi
FrauBlucher
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.