Page 86 of 197
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:53 am
by Big Blue Owl
ElfDude wrote:Big Blue Owl wrote:700 BILLION dollars.
And you know it's gonna turn out to be a lot more than that in the end. This is nuts!
Right.
So what, I have to default on my mortgage so that millions of irresponsible twits who "qualified" for flunky mortgage loans (with balloons) that they knew they could never pay, can just screw over the bank and we can be taxed for the rest of our lives? And these parasites that preyed on these mindless credidiots are millionaires because of it.
This is what happens when we are hands-off and deregulated and trust businesses and industries to do the right thing. This philosophy hasn't worked. Can we at least agree on that? I mean, with this collapse and all. The proof is and will be there for years and years to come.
We still have a long way to go in the thinking department as a nation, as the human race.
Where is the catastrophe or war to distract us from this one? Probably right around the freakin' corner.
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:13 am
by ElfDude
Well... in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it didn't have anything to do with deregualtion. It had to do with cooking the books Enron-style, but with much bigger numbers.
I'm currently looking at these:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00184.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4481847c-8462 ... ck_check=1
A lot of this is still beyond my comprehension, and I'm trying to learn. I really want to understand this... not just hear the talking points. A paragraph tht struck me in that Financial Times article...
It is easy to assert that the solution to any market failure is better regulation. If regulators were all-knowing and all-powerful; if they were wiser than the chief executives but willing to do the job for a fraction of the remuneration awarded to such executives; if they understood what was happening in the dealing rooms of Citigroup, Merrill or Lehman better than Chuck Prince, Stan O'Neal, or Dick Fuld; then banking regulation could protect us against financial instability. But such a world does not exist. Market economies outperform planned economies not because business people are smarter than civil servants - sometimes they are, sometimes not. But no one has enough information or foresight to understand the changing environment, so the market's messy processes of experiment and correction yield better results than a regulator's analysis.
But government bailing some if these places out because, "they're too big to fail"? I'm not buying it.
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:27 am
by Big Blue Owl
We can dress it up in distraction clothing all we want, but it comes down to oversight and accountability. The only way to achieve this is to regulate these juggernauts, unlike has been the practice for nearly 10 years. Or is it actually 40 years?
I want to understand it more as well.
And maybe the next distraction is the fact that we keep taunting Afghanistan by flying into their airspace unannounced and uninvited with military planes, causing that country to do exactly what any sovereign country would do; Shoot at them, warning shots first.
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:30 am
by ElfDude
Big Blue Owl wrote:We can dress it up in distraction clothing all we want, but it comes down to oversight and accountability.
The accountability word... I'm with you 100% on that one!
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:30 am
by ElfDude
America's counterterrorism community is warning that Al Qaeda may launch more overseas operations to influence the presidential elections in November.
Call it Osama bin Laden's "October surprise." In late August, during the weekend between the Democratic and Republican conventions, America's military and intelligence agencies intercepted a series of messages from Al Qaeda's leadership to intermediate members of the organization asking local cells to be prepared for imminent instructions.
An official familiar with the new intelligence said the message was picked up in multiple settings, from couriers to encrypted electronic communications to other means. "These are generic orders," the source said ? a distinction from the more specific intelligence about the location, time, and method of an attack. "It was, 'Be on notice. We may call upon you soon.' It was sent out on many channels."
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:48 am
by Big Blue Owl
Ah, there it is. And now for the Fear Factor! We must elect McCain/Palin to save us from this new threat! They are the only ones with the military and executive experience needed to defeat the enemy! The economy means nothing when the security of our nation is at stake!
Somebody bump the turntable, please. The needle is stuck in the groove.
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:53 am
by ElfDude
So... the counterterrorism community is lying?
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:21 am
by Big Blue Owl
Who knows who is lying anymore? The "stay the course" "the fundamentals of our economy is sound" "Voted 91% along with the Bush admin." gang is now the "Change" folks...just because they say they are!
I find it difficult to trust anything anyone says anymore. Who makes up this "counterterrorism community?" Who are their bosses and what have they been pressing them to release? Are these the same folks that knew months in advance that something like 911 was imminent and nothing was done to alert and avoid? Is this like the committee who investigated Iraq and said that there was no weapon of mass destruction there, and we began a war there anyway?
How do we know what is actually real? And how long do we just live by whatever those up there say?
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:26 am
by ElfDude
Well... you're kind of all over the place there, so I'm not really sure how to answer.
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:27 am
by Big Blue Owl
Yes, I am all over the place. And I am never really looking for an answer. That train has sailed.
But for conversation's sake, the gist is, who makes up this counterterrorism community?
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:58 am
by ElfDude
Well... the community is widespread. It would include parts of the CIA, the FBI, and Homeland Security. All of the intelligence gathered by these agencies is processed by the National Counterterrorism Center.
http://www.nctc.gov/
Now... we do know that al-Qaeda has a long history of trying to influence elections. So, this would be nothing new. The rest of the article, which discusses this in more detail, can be read here.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/spies-warn ... ise/86326/
If they try something, will the Republicans try to capitalize on it? Sure.
Are the Democrats trying to capitalize on fear created by the current economic situation (even though the blame can be equally spread)? Sure.
This is just how election years go. You're tired of it. I'm tired of it. But here we are.
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:08 am
by Big Blue Owl
Yep.
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:25 am
by awip2062
My two cents (and sorry I am chiming in late, but E just finished his online class a bit ago):
The best accountability for us would be NOT to bail anyone out. Now, I know that would hurt -- bad. And, it is very likely that although I don't have a mortgage, I would be hurt too. I am not so stupid to think that this won't affect me in anyway, it's gonna have an effect upon me no matter what is done. But, if we bail them out, they won't learn. They will just rest assured that there is a safety net out there, the US Government (which we all know really isn't the govt. but your money and mine).
And, as for the election and the question of whether or not we elect McCain/Palin to save us...nopes, we don't elect them to save us. But we don't not elect them because of what is happening in the world, either. We elect whomever we want to elect regardless of what anyone else says or thinks or does.
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:37 am
by ElfDude
And let us not forget... it was the bail-outs at the beginning of the great depression that caused it to last for so long.
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:47 am
by Big Blue Owl
We elect whomever we want to elect regardless of what anyone else says or thinks or does.
Well, that is the theory, anyway. Who really knows what is true, though.