realjohnboy
 
  4  
Fri 23 Oct, 2009 01:05 pm
I would like to recommend that yall consider googling "banking system meltdown 2008 2009." Up will appear a link to about 3 pages on Wikipedia on the whole history of bad lending/investing practices that led in September and early October to a virtual collapse of the world banking system.
I think that it is worth noting that President Bush and the Treasury Department were not working on the crisis alone. Many, perhaps most other countries, saw what was happening and that it could be a disaster.
It is not as tough a read as you might think!
(I do note that at the top of the article there are some issues with the neutrality of some of the writing. I can live with that. It is, in essence, a breaking story).
I was going to print it out to be able to respond to any questions or comments but I'm out of toner.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Fri 23 Oct, 2009 01:08 pm
@realjohnboy,
rjb, I'm assuming you mean the wiki version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932009

realjohnboy
 
  2  
Fri 23 Oct, 2009 01:21 pm
@Rockhead,
Yes, that is the link. Thanks.
Reading the whole thing is recommended, but you could start with Section 2: Financial Market Impacts.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 23 Oct, 2009 02:08 pm
@realjohnboy,
The world economy is in deep doodle. As consumer spending constricts further as more people lose their jobs and workers increase their savings, we meet up with "catch-22" where savings one's own skin turns out to hurt everybody else's potential for better times.

The biggest problem now facing us is the simple fact that responsible people are now losing their jobs and their homes. Until this trend is reversed, we're going to fall deeper into the pit of a deeper recession.

mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 23 Oct, 2009 05:44 pm
@cicerone imposter,
While I agree with the sentiment, lets remember that not every claim CAN be proven.

For example, people claim that Amelia Earhart is dead.
That cannot be proven, because no body was ever found and nobody knows what happened to her.

So while I agree with you about Okies claims, dont discount any claim just because it cant be proven RIGHT NOW.
teenyboone
 
  1  
Fri 23 Oct, 2009 05:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Hi CI and everyone else! I'm reading a book of essays written in 1953, "The Saturday Review, Vol. 2", a collectors book. Seems that when business isn't regulated enough, you get these "meltdowns", see 1929, one of the "crashes" that have occurred in American History. In this era, it appears as though this meltdown began during the Clinton Presidency, escalated by the "smaller" government Republicans and in 2007, the bottom began to fall out! You have the "foxes" minding the hen house in the Obama Administration. Can't think of their names, but Obama's friend from Harvard and another that was head of something. BOTH of them should be ousted immediately! I don't think this is the "change" Americans was counting on.

For another, the so-called "health" plan should have been voted on with no bi-partisan input, because the Republicans only agenda is to turn Obama's Presidency into failure. The Democrats are going to wind up shooting both feet, if they don't grow a "backbone"! I guess it's why they call this game "politics"!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 23 Oct, 2009 05:58 pm
@mysteryman,
I'm really not interested in Amelia Earhart. I only respond to okie's posts that are way out in left field without any credible support or resource, and are based only on his own imagination.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Fri 23 Oct, 2009 06:55 pm
@Advocate,
I could not find evidence that Moore is a card carrying communist, although something sticks in my mind he was a member of some extreme socialist organization, although I could not find that now. The facts remain however that Communists have praised Moore on more than one occasion for his films, etc. Also, I did find some information about Moore taking 3 ailing ground zero rescue workers to Communist Cuba as a publicity stunt for his film, to attempt to show that Communist Cuba would provide health care for those people that they supposedly could not get here. Not only communists have praised Moore for his work, but even terrorists liked his Fahrenheit 911 film.

I think that although he may not be a card carrying communist, his sympathies are definitely in that direction, and he seems to have a severe dislike of America, capitalism, and so forth. It is entirely logical that if you walk like a duck and quack like a duck, you are pretty close to a duck, and that is Michael Moore in regard to communism.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 23 Oct, 2009 07:00 pm
@teenyboone,
teenyboone, Actually, Reagan was the one who deregulated the bank industry, but the real meltdown began before the Clinton Presidency, although Clinton helped exacerbate the problem by loosening Freddie and Fannie loans to the unqualified buyers. Finger pointing at one president really doesn't answer all the accumulation of problems that past presidents and congress failed to do. Even the rating companies that graded those mortgage derivatives didn't do their jobs correctly, and the SEC also failed at the switch. At the bottom of all this problem was greed. Home sellers and mortgage companies sold homes to unqualified buyers, and many borrowed against their home equities to spend money they really didn't have. Credit was too easy, and most consumers spent money by plastic and paying only the interest on their balances.

All this consumer spending made it look as though our economy was growing at 3%, but was actually the beginning of this recession.

When the value of homes began to drop, and the mortgage was more than the house was worth, the banks and consumers lost most of their equity. The biggest problem we now face is that responsible people who purchased homes are now losing their jobs and their homes which exacerbates our economic problems. Unemployment continues to climb, and there's no sign this will improve any time soon.

You are correct in that the Obama presidency is going to end up shooting themselves on both feet, because they're trying to get republican support for their health plan that will never appear. Obama's biggest problem is the fact that he doesn't have the majority of democrats who will support his health plan. It's going to be an uphill battle all the way.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 23 Oct, 2009 07:02 pm
@okie,
okie, You look like and duck, quack like a duck, and brain capacity looks similar. I guess you're a duck.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sat 24 Oct, 2009 06:08 am
@cicerone imposter,
You're right! Couldn't sleep, so I watched CNBC and they showed Reagan plugging for the Insurance Companies long before he ran for governor. Opened my eyes! I knew Reagan dissolved many a union, because my 1st cousin was one of many air-traffic controllers he fired. Lucky for my cousin. He went back into the US Navy, finished medical school, retired from the Navy and is still a practicing physician in MD. Proof that the glass is half FULL!

Incidentally that long playing LP with Reagan "running off at the mouth" is a collectors' item. Repugs sure want to place Reagan's face on Mt. Rushmore!
The Dems aren't doing a bad job of looking clueless, either! They can denounce Republicans all they want. Many of them are sitting in the back pockets of the "thieves" that are "bleeding us dry", by denying medical benefits. Anyone for moving to Canada? France? Everything is FREE, there!
mysteryman
 
  1  
Sat 24 Oct, 2009 10:04 am
@teenyboone,
Quote:
I knew Reagan dissolved many a union, because my 1st cousin was one of many air-traffic controllers he fired.


Lets be honest.
He fired the ATC's AFTER they went on strike (an illegal strike BTW), and their union (PATCO) refused to go back to work.
They put public safety at risk, and as govt employees they had a "no strike" clause in their contract.
So, while its true that Reagan fired them, they brought it on themselves.

What other unions did Reagan dissolve?
okie
 
  0  
Sat 24 Oct, 2009 07:40 pm
If a few other unions had been busted, we would still have alot more manufacturing in this country, and more jobs, and probably a much healthier economy. That along with a more practical corporate tax structure, and we would be alot better off.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sun 25 Oct, 2009 04:45 pm
@mysteryman,
The year was 1981. I remembered it because I knew someone who was fired. It was the beginning of the end of unions as we knew them. I'm sure if I "google" it, the crap Reagan got away with will pop up, like a bad penny. This from a racist, that started his presidential campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi, where 3 civil rights workers were murdered by the police for trying to register Blacks to vote, so what shall I look for? All Republicans since him suck!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 25 Oct, 2009 04:55 pm
@teenyboone,
Here's an interesting article about Reagan and unions. It's not clear Reagan was responsible for the demise of unions.

Quote:
Reagan presidency pivotal for unions
Workers: Organized labor's situation worsened under his administration.

By Stacey Hirsh Sun Staff

June 8, 2004


Ronald Reagan's presidency signaled a critical period for organized labor, a time when unions began shrinking at a much faster pace and it became more acceptable for businesses to fight off labor organizations.

But what remains in dispute about his legacy is whether the former president's actions triggered a decline in union membership or accelerated a trend that was had already begun.


"It isn't clear whether Reagan set the tone for the '80s and into the '90s, or whether he reflected changes in society," said Charles Craver, a labor law professor at George Washington University Law School and author of Can Unions Survive? The Rejuvenation of the American Labor Movement.

The percentage of the American work force that was unionized peaked in the 1950s at about 35 percent and had fallen to 23 percent by the time Reagan was elected in 1980, according to Craver and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

During the decades leading up to Reagan's presidency, the number of union members grew - but not as quickly as the work force was expanding.

The culture had started to change, America was becoming more conservative, and employers were becoming more strongly anti-union, Craver said.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Sun 25 Oct, 2009 05:10 pm
While I don't think Reagan was a friend of the unions, I don't think he caused their demise. The unions became dinosaurs, useless and corrupt.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 25 Oct, 2009 05:20 pm
@dyslexia,
and largely outlawed, don't forget that part. Once Unions lost the ability to organize shops there was no way to come back from the mistakes made earlier by the unions....corruption, not working hard enough for the little guy, harming the business by refusing to work with management...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 25 Oct, 2009 05:53 pm
@dyslexia,
What's interesting in the history of unions is Jimmy Hoffa who disappeared in mid-seventies when he was head of the biggest union in the country. His son took over, and remained strong in the teamsters. I haven't heard much about the teamsters for many years, but I belonged to the teamsters when I was going to college and worked for trucking companies as a teletype biller earning pretty good money. As a teenager in Sacramento, I also worked for Del Monte cannery, and earned decent wages under a union contract.

I also learned in college that unions also helped non-union workers with better wages and working conditions. From my personal experience and education, I've been an advocate for unions.

Since I haven't kept up with unions for many decades, my beliefs about unions haven't changed much until recent times when union shops may have helped destroy the US auto industry. However, I also blame poor management decisions for their problems. If they had maintained quality to compete with Japanese auto makers, I'm sure they would have survived.

0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Mon 26 Oct, 2009 08:07 am
The funny thing is that Reagan was, when younger, a union leader in Hollywood. Moreover, I believe he was an effective leader. Then he sold out completely to his billionaire buddies and devoted himself to feathering their nests.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Mon 26 Oct, 2009 10:14 am
Obama catches up to Bush on the links

Now, we know that Bush spent a lot of time at Camp David and back in Texas on vacation. The right likes to point out that a Presidential vacation isn't like ours, sitting on the beach, enjoying the sun/waves, but instead is a working vacation where the Nation's business was being conducted.

Obama has tied Bush in rounds of golf played (in Obama's 9 months, vs Bush's 8 years). I'm sure it would be difficult to conduct the Nation's business while teeing off.

I personally don't care about this, but I want to see how the left will spin it and how the right will jump on it.

Just stirring some ****.

Quote:

President Obama has already caught up with predecessor George W. Bush in one area: Rounds of golf.

The Oval's good friend Mark Knoller of CBS News reports that Obama on Sunday played his 24th round of golf since his inauguration Jan. 20 -- matching Bush's presidential total, which he racked up in two years and ten months. Obama's latest round also got attention because it included a woman, domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes.

President Bush played his last round in 2003, telling reporters he didn't think it was appropriate to play the game with the the U.S. at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Previously, Bush's mixing of golf and foreign policy had gotten him into trouble. On Aug. 4, 2002, standing near the first tee, Bush made a solemn statement on a suicide bombing in Israel, then announced to assembled reporters: "Thank you, now watch this drive." Michael Moore put the scene in his anti-Bush film, Fahrenheit 911.

As for the current president, Don Van Natta, Jr. -- who did a book on presidents and golf -- has a piece on Obama's game in the latest in Golf Digest. Van Natta writes that, "Obama approaches the game in the same way that he conducts his politics -- maniacally methodical, aggressively competitive and devoutly risk-averse."


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/10/620000444/1



Oh, and I'm sure Bush's decision not to play had much more to do with the Moore film than he'd ever admit too.
 

Related Topics

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
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1450
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.32 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 10:23:31