Where is the US economy headed?

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
The other issue, Dodd and Frank were part of the problem of bad overseeing by the government, and they should also resign. Surely you could agree with that as well? That is pretty clear, is it not?

Oh, please. The Republicans were in charge of the whole mess for the last 8 years, you never called for the resignation of a single one of them.

Cycloptichorn

So Dodd is innocent? He wasn't then, and he isn't now. We will all wait for Obama to ask Dodd to resign, and for Geithner to resign. After all, Obama is on record as saying his administration had nothing to do with this, right, but now that we know differently, heads should roll. Two questions, will Obama be a man of his word, and direct his outrage at the people responsible, and did Obama know the following already. He is either dishonest, dumb, or both. Did he read the bill, or did his staff read the bill?

"Sen. Dodd Admits Adding Bonus Provision to Stimulus Package

In a dramatic reversal Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., confessed to adding language to the stimulus bill last month that exempted all bonuses that bailed-out companies had promised to employees before Feb. 11, 2009.

Dodd told FOX News that Treasury officials forced him to make the change."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/sen-dodd-admits-adding-bonus-provision-stimulus-package/

2 Replies

@okie,

I'm sure okie never made a mistake in his life, because he thinks he's god, and can question everybody's mistakes. okie is a perfect example of what is called a hypocrite.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I'm sure okie never made a mistake in his life, because he thinks he's god, and can question everybody's mistakes. okie is a perfect example of what is called a hypocrite.

CI, your response was incorrectly formatted.

You needed to use Teleprompterese:

Quote:

I'm sure...(turn head)... okie never made...(turn head)... a mistake...(turn head)... in his life...(turn head, dramatic pause)... , because...(turn head)... he thinks...(turn head)... he's god...(turn head, grin)... , and can question...(turn head)... everybody's...(turn head)... mistakes...(turn head, look angry)... . okie...(turn head)... is a perfect example...(turn head)... of what is called...(turn head)... a hypocrite...(turn head, look indignant)...

0 Replies

World Bank President Robert Zoellick said on Saturday, ...

"2009 a 'very dangerous year':

0 Replies

@okie,

Dodd also pointed to the Obama administration as where the idea to authorize the bonuses originated.

Thought a few here might appreciate this:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/coletoon_-__aig_high20090319112209.jpg

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

What, no McCain Picture to make light Of? He recd donations also.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Sept. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Republican presidential candidate John McCain, shifting his position, suggested the government's $85 billion takeover of American International Group Inc. was unavoidable as both he and rival Barack Obama blamed regulators.

``On the bailout itself, I didn't want to do that,'' the Republican presidential nominee said on ABC's ``Good Morning America'' program today. ``But there were literally millions of people whose retirement, whose investments, whose insurance were at risk here, and they were going to have their lives destroyed because of the greed and excess and corruption.''

Twenty-four hours earlier, McCain said that he didn't want taxpayers to be ``on the hook'' for AIG. ``We cannot have the taxpayers bail out AIG or anybody else,'' McCain said yesterday on NBC's ``Today'' show.

Obama, the Democratic nominee, blamed policies pursued under President George W. Bush and said the takeover must not result in a bailout for AIG corporate officers or investors.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

The bonuses weren't 'authorized' per se. They were pre-existing, and we just didn't make them illegal when we had the opportunity to do so earlier.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@farmerman,

True. Actually he was No. 3 on the list no doubt because he was the GOP candidate and these outfits like to hedge their bets. AIG surely didn't want to funnel all the money to the Democrats just in case Obama didn't win.

The top 20:

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Top_20_AIG_recipients.jpg

Democrats in the top 20 received a total of $374,222.00
Republicans received $126,349.00

McCain unfortunately has been prone to ride the fence pretty closely in a lot of these things and his appetite for government bailouts that he supported last year seems to now have faded. This is why it was so hard for many of us to get really enthusiastic about him.

But in fairness to him, he was not party to the legislation that authorized those bonuses. Chris Dodd and the Obama administration were.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

dear foxfyre; while I realize you vowed never to respond to my posts, I took no such vow; Chris Dodd is a liar and a politician (dare say I repeat myself) but for you to imply that AIG issues are a party issue (dems vs reps) is the epitome of inane and just plain silly Okie type partisianship idiocy.

0 Replies

dear dyslexia.

I didn't say it was a partisan issue. I only said that it was Dodd and the Obama administration who put the language in the legislation that authorized those bonuses and McCain had nothing to do with that particular thing. Dispute that if you can.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Considering the AIG bonuses were put in place and agreed to in November by the Fed and Treasury, how is the Obama administration in any way responsible?
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/treasury-fed-reviewed-aig-bonus-info-months-ago/

2 Replies

@parados,

parados, As I've said on another thread, our government got sloppy when they gave out those billions without any strings attached. Sloppiness and greed fits like a glove.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

The GOP uses fear to win their case on every important issue that faces our country. How many have they been right on?

Quote:

GOP predicts doomsday if Obama budget passed
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 16 mins ago

WASHINGTON " Congressional Republicans on Sunday predicted a doomsday scenario of crushing debt and eventual federal bankruptcy if President Barack Obama's massive spending blueprint wins passage.

But a White House adviser dismissed the negative assessments, saying she is "incredibly confident" that the president's policies will "do the job" for the economy.

In a TV interview, Obama himself laughed when discussing the dire state of parts of the economy " and ascribed his laughter to "gallows humor."

White House Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman Christina Romer insisted that the nation's flailing economy will be rebounding by 2010.

Administration officials " and the president himself " have taken a cheerier tone despite economic indicators that are anything but positive.

"I have every expectation, as do private forecasters, that we will bottom out this year and actually be growing again by the end of the year," Romer said.

The president, in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS News' "60 Minutes," talked about the need to spend taxpayer money to save financial firms and the auto industry.

"I just want to say that the only thing less popular than putting money into banks is putting money into the auto industry," Obama said with a laugh.

Interviewer Steve Kroft asked how that laughter might be perceived, given the economy's troubles.

"There's got to be a little gallows humor to get you through the day," Obama said. "If you had said to us a year ago that the least of my problems would be Iraq, which is still a pretty serious problem, I don't think anybody would have believed it."

Republicans say Obama's budget is no laughing matter.

Senate Republicans warned of deficits that could climb to $20 trillion in coming years and a weakened dollar if Obama and his Democratic allies get their proposed $3.6 trillion budget plan passed.

0 Replies

@parados,

No Parados, they weren't. Read Okie's post at the top of the page. I've posted quite a bit of similar information on either this thread or elsewhere from several different sources.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

It matters what year those donations were made. If you're talking about the 2008 election year, there's no surprise about the greater amount being given to democrats. That, of coarse, is something you will never "see."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Sloppiness and greed fits like a glove.

That's what you get with Left wing Democrats in charge of everything.
No sane person expected anything else from them.

0 Replies

AND THE CROWD GOES WILD!
The Dow soared 500 points. The Dow, Nasdaq and S&P up about 7%.
The Treasury published a Fact Sheet about how the clearing of toxic assets off of banks' balance sheets.
Here is the example posted to explain it:
1) A bank might toss loans having an original* value into a pool that could be auctioned off to private investors. Say $100B.
2) A private investor might bid $84B after reviewing the pool to see the interest rates the loans might be earning, the delinquency rate, the geographical distribution. The FDIC will fund and guarantee 1/7th of the $84B; in this example $72B after signing off on the deal.
3) That leaves $12B ($84B-$72B). The Treasury, using TARP money, will put up $6B and the private investor will put up $6B for a share of the profit/loss.

The * may no longer be the carrying value of the loans on banks' balance sheets. Some of the decline in value may have already been recognized.
The government example stops there. So I will make up the rest. Suppose the A2K Investment Club, holding this $100B pool of loans restructures the loans and gets a total of 5% interest on the pool for 10 years ($5B/year=$50B) and recovers principle of, say $86B (for another $2B profit). The private investors would get 50% of the $52B profit ($50B + $2B), equals $26B over 10 years, or (ignoring the present value of money etc) $2.6B a year or a return of 44% a year. The governmet will get an equal amount of the profit.
Are than any flaws in the STRUCTURE of the deal/example as I have posed us. If so, please correct me. If not, we can, if yall are interested in talking about economics, we can talk about, for example, how valid the 84% bid that the A2K Club is. I have heard more like 50% .

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

It matters what year those donations were made. If you're talking about the 2008 election year, there's no surprise about the greater amount being given to democrats. That, of coarse, is something you will never "see."

I...(turn head)...did not...(turn head)...take money...(turn head)...from THAT company...(look directly into camera, crinkle forehead)

Thank you Mr. President. We'll see you at the impeachment...that'll be all

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Looks interesting rjb.

Tell me--who owns the properties which are defaulted on?

There's a factor I think you've overlooked. The cost of building new properties. Land make get cheaper, wages go down, materials get reduced and efficiencies of building might improve. Population might increase. As might single households.

Show me my A2K share of $1oo B and I'm off on the razz.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know