Outstanding Article

apple0154 said:
Obama has already warned the banks about restricted lending. The "bail-out" was to provide money for loans for small businesses and people of worthy credit.

It takes time to correct things.
Click to expand...

The bailout was because banks had billions of dollars of toxic debt on their books and they would have gone under without the help.

"It takes time". I see, that's partisan speak for I don't want to hold the guy I support responsible like I'm trying to do the guy before him.
 
apple0154 said:
Obama has already warned the banks about restricted lending. The "bail-out" was to provide money for loans for small businesses and people of worthy credit.

It takes time to correct things.
Click to expand...

Um no... it would be very simple to put Glass Steagall back in place. It could be done in a few days at most. The only thing to be discussed would be the time given to the banks to break up.
 
Superfreak said:
Um no... it would be very simple to put Glass Steagall back in place. It could be done in a few days at most. The only thing to be discussed would be the time given to the banks to break up.
Click to expand...

i know, i know....

let's do the obama thing and warn banks about interest rates.....thus giving them months ahead of time to raise them and according to dems.....rob us...

but obama will blithely claim he capped interest rates while dishonestly admitting he and the legislature fucked up by giving them time to RAISE raise interest rates before the law
 
cawacko said:
The bailout was because banks had billions of dollars of toxic debt on their books and they would have gone under without the help.

"It takes time". I see, that's partisan speak for I don't want to hold the guy I support responsible like I'm trying to do the guy before him.
Click to expand...

Yes, the bailout was to help the banks with their toxic debts but the banks loan money to people and if the banks didn't get money to loan there wouldn't be any.

Yes, it takes time. It's like a person dieting. Five years of putting on weight and they expect to lose it in a couple of weeks.
 
Superfreak said:
Um no... it would be very simple to put Glass Steagall back in place. It could be done in a few days at most. The only thing to be discussed would be the time given to the banks to break up.
Click to expand...

Riiiiight. I'm sure all those nice Congress folks would jump in with their usual bipartisan conviviality and pass it in a couple of days.

The more likely picture would be screams of socialism and taking over the monetary system and comparing it to the health plan and how Obama is going to take care of your personal banking.

If they could conjure up death panels when discussing the health plan I'm sure some clown will say the government plans on sending every household a budget sheet to be filled out and submitted. :rofl:
 
apple0154 said:
Yes, the bailout was to help the banks with their toxic debts but the banks loan money to people and if the banks didn't get money to loan there wouldn't be any.

Yes, it takes time. It's like a person dieting. Five years of putting on weight and they expect to lose it in a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

Are you for real with that first sentence?

If I may quote John McCain I don't know sh*t about economics but you're giving me a good run for my money. You can't even list one thing Bush should have done other than be a better leader. Ok, great. Hell I can tell you he should have had better enforcement of the SEC.

And you still can't answer (nor Mott) what your opinion of the Fed's relationship with the Executive Branch should be.

In 1998 Long Term Capital Managment failed spectactorially (sp). Right then showed how intertwining (sp) derivitives had become in our economy when all the big investment banks had to be called together to attempt a bail out. LTCM also had crazy leverage. These are the same problems we saw in the financial meltdown of '07. Because you like to compartimentalize economic acitivity Bush inherited that crap along with Glass-Steagal then 9/11 attacks and the Fed who practically gave away money. Oh the poor guy. He need more time.
 
apple0154 said:
Riiiiight. I'm sure all those nice Congress folks would jump in with their usual bipartisan conviviality and pass it in a couple of days.

The more likely picture would be screams of socialism and taking over the monetary system and comparing it to the health plan and how Obama is going to take care of your personal banking.

If they could conjure up death panels when discussing the health plan I'm sure some clown will say the government plans on sending every household a budget sheet to be filled out and submitted. :rofl:
Click to expand...

Let's see it was repealed 90-8 in the Senate and 343-86 in the House. Rather bi-partisan numbers I think it could be argued. And if it was the cause of the crash rather easy to have similar numbers to put it back in place.

Nice diversion attempt with the Death Panels though.

Edit: And your whole argument is about leadership. Obama simply needs to tell the American people the supposive damage Glass-Steagal caused and it would be a no-brainer to be put back in place..
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But since this solution is the absolute best, why shouldn't our Senators and Congressmen be obligated to use it also??
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's not the absolute best. It is only a start to a universal plan, plans which all developed countries have.

It's the fault of the opposition why the plan is anything but the absolute best. The opposition doesn't want any plan so to think an absolute best plan could be implemented is dreaming in technicolor.

But it is a start and considering government has been trying to implement a plan since the 1940's, as I noted in msg. 126, ANY plan deserves a full round of applause. We'll be finally out of the gate, so to say.

As people experience the, as of yet, unimaginable benefits successive governments will improve the plan. History will look back on "today" as the turning point championed by a great leader.

(It that partisan enough for you?) :rofl:
 
cawacko said:
Are you for real with that first sentence?

If I may quote John McCain I don't know sh*t about economics but you're giving me a good run for my money. You can't even list one thing Bush should have done other than be a better leader. Ok, great. Hell I can tell you he should have had better enforcement of the SEC.

And you still can't answer (nor Mott) what your opinion of the Fed's relationship with the Executive Branch should be.

In 1998 Long Term Capital Managment failed spectactorially (sp). Right then showed how intertwining (sp) derivitives had become in our economy when all the big investment banks had to be called together to attempt a bail out. LTCM also had crazy leverage. These are the same problems we saw in the financial meltdown of '07. Because you like to compartimentalize economic acitivity Bush inherited that crap along with Glass-Steagal then 9/11 attacks and the Fed who practically gave away money. Oh the poor guy. He need more time.
Click to expand...

Which of the following were you more aware of before they actually happened?
1. The Iraq war
2. The financial crisis

I don't know if you watch TV but I was far more aware of a possible war with Iraq before the actual war started than I was aware of a possible financial crisis before it actually happened.
 
apple0154 said:
Which of the following were you more aware of before they actually happened?
1. The Iraq war
2. The financial crisis

I don't know if you watch TV but I was far more aware of a possible war with Iraq before the actual war started than I was aware of a possible financial crisis before it actually happened.
Click to expand...

That's your response? The two are not analogous. No wonder you can't answer anything else because you have that stuck in your head.
 
cawacko said:
Let's see it was repealed 90-8 in the Senate and 343-86 in the House. Rather bi-partisan numbers I think it could be argued. And if it was the cause of the crash rather easy to have similar numbers to put it back in place.

Nice diversion attempt with the Death Panels though.

Edit: And your whole argument is about leadership. Obama simply needs to tell the American people the supposive damage Glass-Steagal caused and it would be a no-brainer to be put back in place..
Click to expand...

Let me use an analogy. You loan a guy money. Would you then try to dictate how he is to earn an income so he will be able to pay you back?

As for re-instating the Glass-Steagal Act can't you hear them now?
"Is this the absolute best plan?" "Let's discuss it." "Let's form a committee." "Why aren't there more Repubs on the committee?" "This is going to destroy the ability of banks/insurance companies to make money." "How can we expect them to reimburse the government when the government is trying to prevent them from making money?"

The logical way is to get things stabilized, get some of the bail-out money back and then talk about making changes and that appears to be Obama's approach.
 
apple0154 said:
Let me use an analogy. You loan a guy money. Would you then try to dictate how he is to earn an income so he will be able to pay you back?

As for re-instating the Glass-Steagal Act can't you hear them now?
"Is this the absolute best plan?" "Let's discuss it." "Let's form a committee." "Why aren't there more Repubs on the committee?" "This is going to destroy the ability of banks/insurance companies to make money." "How can we expect them to reimburse the government when the government is trying to prevent them from making money?"

The logical way is to get things stabilized, get some of the bail-out money back and then talk about making changes and that appears to be Obama's approach.
Click to expand...

First off most banks have repaid the money. Secondly the banks made money for 60 years before Glass-Steagal was revoked. The argument that it would prevent them from making money doesn't fly.

Third this goes to your whole point about leadership. There are always going to be people bitching when something changes or gets done. If it's the right thing to do shouldn't by your standards Obama be out there championing it? This is where your partisanship is coming in because you want to give him a pass whereas you are blaming Bush for essentially the same thing.
 
Yurt said:
so you actually have zero ideas on what bush could have actually done....got it

bush was not a failed leader....only partisan hacks like you make such a claim. he was not a great leader, but he was a leader....
Click to expand...
OH Jesus Christ. By any objective measure Bush was a failed President. Admiting this fact does not make one a partisan. Just as admiting that Bill Clinton was a whore doesn't make you a partisan either or admitting Babe Ruth was the best baseball player ever doesn't make you a Yankees fan either.
 
apple0154 said:
Unfortunately, it's not the absolute best. It is only a start to a universal plan, plans which all developed countries have.

It's the fault of the opposition why the plan is anything but the absolute best. The opposition doesn't want any plan so to think an absolute best plan could be implemented is dreaming in technicolor.

But it is a start and considering government has been trying to implement a plan since the 1940's, as I noted in msg. 126, ANY plan deserves a full round of applause. We'll be finally out of the gate, so to say.

As people experience the, as of yet, unimaginable benefits successive governments will improve the plan. History will look back on "today" as the turning point championed by a great leader.

(It that partisan enough for you?) :rofl:
Click to expand...
You are aware that the irony of your statement will fly straight over his head?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No....1999. He voiced opposition when it was originally appealed. So did Volcker.
Click to expand...

The point was in 2005, not when the legislation was passed. I already posted the numbers of it passing which were huge. apple's argument is that it should have been reintroduced by Bush in 2005. I said there wasn't anyone in 2005 who was calling for it to be put back into place. And now apple wants to claim it can't be put back into place in 2009. Makes no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top