5
   

OBAMA BOOM ECONOMY: RECORD BANK IN BEV HILLS, $28,500 A PLATE!

 
 
Woiyo9
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 11:51 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Go **** yourself...You find that annoying little person???

Go suck up to all the other elite liberal snobs who find you "smart" and eloquent in your partisen commentary.

When you become a objective human being, maybe we can finally debate.

Until then ... go fuckoff asshole.

IGNORE SWITCH ON!!!
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 11:52 am
@parados,
The fact that private donors will shell out so much money, at a fund-raising dinner, is terrific. It certainly beats special interest lobbyists throwing huge amounts into a candidate's campaign coffers. Since Obama made a decision not to accept public funds, he has to do more fund-raising events. So, what's the big deal? Are the wealthy in Hollywood more suspect than the wealthy in big corporations? Obama has many financial supporters at all income levels.

I just listened to both Obama and McCain speaking about the economy.

McCain, a life-long supporter of deregulation is now talking about regulation. Talk about jumping on a bandwagon to get yourself elected--even if what you are saying lacks credibility, based on your own record. He put forth a lot of rather vague proposals, which would greatly expand government's operations, without ever mentioning how he would pay for them, except for eliminating "earmarks". But eliminating earmarks would only save about $1o million a year, while McCain's tax cuts would deprive the government of about $3.3 trillion in revenue. His math seems rather faulty. He wants a commision to look for the cause of our economic problems? He must be the only one who is unaware of the causes. It started with deregulation of the banking industry in 1999--spearheaded by his buddy, Phil Gramm. This didn't happen overnight.

Obama has been warning about the looming economic crisis since at least March 2007--he has understood exactly where we were heading, and yesterday did not come as a surprise to him, as it apparently did for McCain. He has not been denying the fundamental weaknesses in our economy. His proposals, including those made today, were not vague, and they more directly addressed the specific concerns of the average American. And, unlike McCain, Obama's thinking about the economy has been consistent, without hypocritical turnarounds and lame attempts to rationalize past statements like, "the underlying fundamentals of the economy are strong".

Poor McCain, now he's frantically trying to sound like a Democrat. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 11:54 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

Go **** yourself...You find that annoying little person???

Go suck up to all the other elite liberal snobs who find you "smart" and eloquent in your partisen commentary.

When you become a objective human being, maybe we can finally debate.

Until then ... go fuckoff asshole.

IGNORE SWITCH ON!!!


Hmm, seems my A2K experience will go on just as before. I'm going to continue calling you out every time I see you making bone-headed and ignorant comments, but now I don't have to put up with your idiotic attempts to explain them.

Now, back on topic - McCain has no record for being pro-regulation, prior to his claims this week. In fact, quite the opposite is true - he has been anti-regulation of Wall street in the past and even during this campaign. How can anyone trust him to make changes now? His record completely contradicts what he is currently proposing.

http://www.propublica.org/article/mccains-record-contrasts-with-promises-of-reforming-wall-st-916/

Quote:
McCain’s Record Contrasts With Promises of ‘Reforming’ Wall St.
by Eric Umansky, ProPublica - September 16, 2008 11:34 am EDT

With the market swooning yesterday, Sens. McCain and Obama promised to shake things up. McCain pledged to "put an end to running Wall Street like a casino."

This morning's New York Times probed the candidates' actual records. It concludes that McCain "has never departed in any major way from his party's embrace of deregulation." Indeed, the Times says, McCain "has no history prior to the presidential campaign of advocating steps to tighten standards on investment firms."

A decade ago McCain pushed unsuccessfully for a moratorium on all federal regulations. Asked about that by the Wall Street Journal this spring, McCain said, "I'm always for less regulation. But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight."

McCain added that given the subprime scandal, more regulations might ultimately be appropriate but, "I am fundamentally a deregulator. I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated, not just a moratorium."

The Times also points out that among McCain's top economic advisers are "two outspoken advocates of free market approaches, former Senator Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan," the former chief of the Fed.

As we noted yesterday, Gramm authored a bill in 2000 that essentially stopped the government from regulating the derivatives and other fancy investments that have fueled the current crisis. (A story this summer in Mother Jones is one of the only stories we've seen that probed the bill and its implications.)


In terms of Obama, with only a short time in the Senate, he's yet to develop much of a record either way on regulating the markets. (Obama did sponsor a bill that would increase penalties for mortgage fraud and increase oversight in the industry.)

So what are the candidates proposing moving forward? Obama has a six-point plan he unveiled this spring that calls for, as the Times puts it, "regulating investment banks, mortgage brokers and hedge funds much as commercial banks are."

Meanwhile, McCain has offered few specifics on his pledge to "reform the way" Wall Street does business.

McClatchy notes that McCain's Web site "contains no proposal outlining regulatory reform for Wall Street."
When queried by the paper, the campaign sent what McClatchy calls a "broad outline of McCain's plan, which includes strengthening disclosure in the lending process so borrowers know exactly what they are getting into and complete disclosure of all cash and non-cash compensation of corporate CEOs."


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 12:10 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

You know, your ******* arrogance is quite annoying.

Do you want to debate or just act like the child you are and "call names"?

Here is the moving parts of the THING I MISSED...

First, if you’re a financial institution that can borrow from the government, you should be subject to government oversight and supervision. When the Federal Reserve steps in as a lender of last resort, it is providing an insurance policy underwritten by the American taxpayer. In return, taxpayers have every right to expect that financial institutions with access to that credit are not taking excessive risks.

Duh.... Who would you appoint to be oversee'r? What is wrong with the SEC and what would you fix?
The SEC doesn't oversee loans. They oversee the financial disclosures of companies. Those disclosures are filled with unclear verbiage. The SEC also doesn't oversee capital on hand requirements for banks or insurance companies. Those are the Fed and state insurance regulators. As an insurance company AIG is not regulated by the federal government but it is eligible to get loans from the FED.

Quote:

Second, we must reform requirements on all regulated financial institutions. We must strengthen capital requirements, particularly for complex financial instruments like some of the mortgage securities and other derivatives at the center of our current crisis. We must develop and rigorously manage liquidity risk. We must investigate rating agencies and potential conflicts of interest with the people they are rating. And we must establish transparency requirements that demand full disclosure by financial institutions to shareholders and counterparties. As we reform our regulatory system at home, we must address the same problems abroad so that financial institutions around the world are subject to similar rules of the road.


Duh... how? Manage liquidity risk? If he can tell me that, I can become rich. Full disclousure is already here with the pounds of paper we get that no one can understand.
No, full disclosure is NOT here. Full disclosure would have required Bear and Lehman to tell the world the particulars of their assets. Those were NOT revealed in any disclosure. Instead investors are required to rely on the statements of rating agencies that are paid by the company they are rating.
Quote:

Third, we need to streamline our regulatory agencies. Our overlapping and competing regulatory agencies cannot oversee the large and complex institutions that dominate the financial landscape. Different institutions compete in multiple markets - Washington should not pretend otherwise. A streamlined system will provide better oversight and reduce costs.

Wait. Isn't this the same as above?
You mean there are MORE regulatory agencies than just the SEC? So much for your first argument. By deregulating banks and allowing them to go into areas that aren't controlled by the banking industry we suddenly have complex issues that aren't being addressed.
For instance, a bank can now sell insurance. Both the bank and insurance company have minimum requirements of cash on hand or liquidity. A bank examiner can't tell what the insurance side needs to have and the insurance regulator can't tell what the bank needs. The company can be underfunded but neither examiner would see it because they only see one side of the business compared to the funding.

Quote:

Fourth, we need to regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are. Over the last few years, commercial banks and thrift institutions were subject to guidelines on subprime mortgages that did not apply to mortgage brokers and companies. This regulatory framework failed to protect homeowners, and made no sense for our financial system. When it comes to protecting the American people, it should make no difference what kind of institution they are dealing with.

Regulatory framework was not the problem with Sub Prime. It was criminal negligence on appraisors, brokers and lenders and the stupid people who signed on the bottom line.
Actually it WAS the regulatory framework that caused the problems. Lack of regulatory oversight allowed all those loans to be bundled as something better than they were. There was no oversight to insure that the loans were any good to begin with and no oversight to ensure that no institution was packing their balance sheet with loans that were rated AAA when they should have been junk status.
Quote:

Fifth, we must crack down on trading activity that crosses the line to market manipulation. The last six months have shown that this remains a serious problem in many markets and becomes especially problematic during moments of great financial turmoil. We cannot embrace the administration’s vision of turning over the protection of investors to the industries themselves. We need regulators that actually enforce the rules instead of overlooking them. The SEC should investigate and punish market manipulation, and report its conclusions to Congress.

Agree but he needs to add liability to the Board of Directors and Executive Officers. What about a tax change relavent to "golden handcuffs"?
First of all, market manipulation isn't the result of Boards and CEOs. It's the result of large hedge funds and other companies moving large amounts of money to buy and sell. The other thing that has exacerbated the problem was the recent change in rules for short trading. There used to be a check on short trading in that you couldn't short a stock except on an uptick. Now you can drive a stock into the ground with short trading and every sale only drives the price down.

As for company execs, "golden handcuffs" were already done against the wishes of many in the GOP. Company executives are finally responsible for their financial reports after Enron. There are still cries to make the regulation go away.
Quote:

Sixth, we must establish a process that identifies systemic risks to the financial system like the crisis that has overtaken our economy. Too often, we end up where we are today: dealing with threats to the financial system that weren’t anticipated by regulators. We need a standing financial market advisory group to meet regularly and provide advice to the President, Congress, and regulators on the state of our financial markets and the risks they face. It’s time to anticipate risks before they erupt into a full-blown crisis.

Difficult to do. How remember the DOT COM Bubble? How will govt tell investors "THIS IS A BAD DEAL"? I understand the sentiment, but this one makes no practical sense...
Actually it makes perfect sense. Warren Buffet should chair the commission. He was famous for not investing in any dot com companies because he didn't understand what they did that could ever make a profit. He was correct. It just took some people 3-4 years to come to the same conclusion.

Quote:

Now stop being a asshole and try to debate.
You started your post with swearing and ended it with swearing. And you think others have a problem debating?
rabel22
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 12:23 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

Go **** yourself...You find that annoying little person???

Go suck up to all the other elite liberal snobs who find you "smart" and eloquent in your partisen commentary.

When you become a objective human being, maybe we can finally debate.

Until then ... go fuckoff asshole.

IGNORE SWITCH ON!!!

Are you going to ignore all the intellegant people. Or just the ones who show you up?
Woiyo9
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 01:18 pm
@parados,
So based upon your comments, you do not agree with Obamas approach.

As an aside, the little girl Cyclo began with the condescending remarks as a result of her ability to debate. You stand right behind her.
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 01:18 pm
@rabel22,
Well I won't ignore you Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 01:21 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

So based upon your comments, you do not agree with Obamas approach.

As an aside, the little girl Cyclo began with the condescending remarks as a result of her ability to debate. You stand right behind her.


At least I can get basic facts right, without having to resort to cursing people out when called on my errors. It's a sign of weakness on your part.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 02:37 pm
Im concerned that , with Woiyos childish outburst, we are getting ever closer to the standards that distinguished the old "abuzz" from grafitti on a subway wall. (hint: there werent any).

Vulgarity is like spice on a dish, it should be used as part of creative repartee, not nyah nyah , schoolyard epithets.

Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 03:11 pm
@farmerman,
You mean like...You're an irrelevant asshole???
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 03:16 pm
@Woiyo9,
Look, I don't care for the vulgarities, either. Take some feedback, for chrissakes.
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 03:23 pm
@DrewDad,
Talk to your girlfriend Cyclo, chump!
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 03:26 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Look, I don't care for the vulgarities, either. Take some feedback, for chrissakes.


He's got nothing else to add to the thread, DD. I too remember a time in which Woiyo was a productive member, and it's sad that this election cycle has caused him to devolve into more trollish behavior.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 03:28 pm
@Woiyo9,
Your insight in unparalleled. Truly.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 09:30:25