What Caused the Financial Meltdown?

Channahon

Well-Known Member
CBS news political analyst - Mike Flannery - Chicago Illinois article

President Bush met with lawmakers Thursday afternoon, talking "bailout" in a compromise to rescue America's economy. As CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports that meeting included the two men running to replace him.

Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain have played any direct role in the bailout bargaining. Thursday's session at the White House was a first for both. Behind the scenes, they've stayed in touch. Each has seen firsthand the anger felt by voters across the country.

"It's outrageous that we find ourselves in a position where taxpayers must bear the burden and the risk for greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street," Obama said.

"No Wall Street executive should profit from taxpayers dollars," McCain said. "Let me put it this way. I would rather build a bridge to nowhere and put it square in the middle of Sedona, Arizona than take money from teachers and farmers and small business owners to line the pockets of the Wall Street crowd that got us here in the first place."

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and other congressional negotiators said the tentative financial bailout deal could come to a vote Saturday or Sunday. Still unclear was the status of a presidential debate scheduled for Friday night at the University of Mississippi. The school claimed to have spent millions of dollars preparing. And that state's Republican governor urged Sen. McCain to participate.

"I expect there to be a debate tomorrow night, I look forward to it," said Gov. Haley Barbour.

"I cannot carry on a campaign as though this dangerous situation had not occurred," McCain said.

For his part, Obama has rejected McCain's call to postpone their first face-to-face 90-minute confrontation.

"The times are too serious to put our campaign on hold or to ignore the full range of issues that the next president will face," Obama said.

The latest word from the McCain campaign is that an air plane will be available Friday to take him to Mississippi until late tomorrow afternoon, in case he changes his mind and decides to debate.

What do voters think of all this? A new survey by Marist College found 53 percent agree with Obama that the debate should go forward; 42 percent agree with McCain – not unless there is a deal should the debate go forward. President Bush met with lawmakers Thursday afternoon, talking "bailout" in a compromise to rescue America's economy.

As CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports that meeting included the two men running to replace him.

Chan's thoughts:
Some people should be going to jail, in my opinion. As complex as this whole situation is, it's just not fair to dump the problem to the taxpayers lap of this country. JMO
 

Braveheart

Well-Known Member
Both sides are to blame. The Republican Congress pushed through a bill in 1999 that gutted the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933 and Clinton the Democrat signed it. The deregulation that transpired since has permitted the "boys" on wall street to go wild.

We actually need both sides people. They are called checks and balances. We need some conservative values, some liberal values, and alas some moderate values.

We could ban all the liberal social agencies that help or protect the people.

We could ban all overtime pay and everyone get paid salary, ban minimum wage laws, get rid of worker's comp and unemployment, dump social security and medicare, close all the mental health clinics and drug rehabs, get rid of child labor laws, eliminate FEMA and the SEC, close down the DOT and OSHA, eliminate the EPA and their pollution laws, close down the liberal unions and so on and so forth.

I just want to know if we change our name to Mexico or China. And since those countries do not have an ounce worth of those overly protective laws and agencies then why are we not all packing up and moving to those countries?

If you are a person who has never benefited from any of those laws or agencies then your name would be Grizzly Adams.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
We could ban all overtime pay and everyone get paid salary, ban minimum wage laws, get rid of worker's comp and unemployment, dump social security and medicare, close all the mental health clinics and drug rehabs, get rid of child labor laws, eliminate FEMA and the SEC, close down the DOT and OSHA, eliminate the EPA and their pollution laws, close down the liberal unions and so on and so forth.

I just want to know if we change our name to Mexico or China. And since those countries do not have an ounce worth of those overly protective laws and agencies then why are we not all packing up and moving to those countries?

quote]

You start out by saying that we all could start demanding our freedom back from the large central government and then you seem to imply that if we do we should change our name to Mexico or China. In case you did not know people in those countries also give up their freedoms to a large central government. The ultimate checks and balances is a free market.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
An article from 1999. :happy-very:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1


"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."


Something else not many people are talking about yet that may be of some interest to a couple on here.

http://www.nysun.com/business/derivatives-pose-new-wrinkle-in-lehman-case/86595/
 

JustTired

free at last.......
Here is something that was shared with me, an interesting concept!

"Im against the bailout!"

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend . To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child.

So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up.. So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00. My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend . Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%. Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.

That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam. But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.00. What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family? Pay off your mortgage – housing crisis solved. Repay college loans – what a great boost to new grads Put away money for college – it'll be there Save in a bank – create money to loan to entrepreneurs. Buy a new car – create jobs Invest in the market – capital drives growth Pay for your parent's medical insurance – health care improves Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean – or else!

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18 + including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces. If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President. If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+! As for AIG – liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General. Sell off the real estate. < BR> Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

I received this in an email, also. And I've got to say that it is a plan that just might work. It has a better chance of working than what is happening now.

Look......we've tried "trickle-down" economics and that trickle seems to evaporate before it gets all the way down. Why not try a "trickle-up" plan? Odds are that those at the bottom will be spending more of that money than those at the top.

The trouble is that those who are in trouble depend on a population that is "in debt". Without them...they need not exist. Why is it easier to "bail out" a corporation than to provide for its' citizens at a lesser cost? Just more proof that "corporate America" is really controlling government.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Heard a democrat Congressman on C-Span this morning verify the same thing basically that is reported at the link below.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023114.html

As I wait in gaslines to get gas, (it's pretty bad here folks) talking with people it's almost unnanimous that people oppose the bailout but what strikes me a surprising is no one is willing to trust the gov't at all or what they are being told. I honestly don't say this to start something but rather as a point that I was frankly shocked in that several folks even went so far as to say they are life long republicans ( I live in a solid republican district that sent both Gingrich and Barr to Congress) and would never vote democrat but they believe Bush can't be trusted in what he sez. They went on to say they now know the Bush adminstration painted an untrue picture on the Middle East condition so why should he be trusted now.

For you party diehards, these folks are still solidly committed to McCain and they see him as a maverick who will save them but Bush has no standing with these people. I didn't try to change their minds on McCain because you can't cure stupid! Just kidding! I really wanted to hear what they had to say so I just agreed and went along.

Watching this Wall Street deal and having to deal with not enough gas to the point you have wait an hour to get some just has people right now not trusting gov't to get anything right.

I think what scares Washington more than anything else, the Schumer gulp factor, is if this thing runs along till election day, we might see the most massive turnout of incumbents this country has ever seen and you know what, some economic pain might be worth ever bit of it too! You might see a larger uptick in 3rd party votes as I've also heard a lot of that expressed in the last couple of weeks and you know I got my diggs in on that!

:rofl:

Seriously, our gov't has failed us and we all need to keep this in mind on election day.

Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a better outcome!

Food for thought
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/bush-socialist-destroyer.html
 
Last edited:

moreluck

golden ticket member
You know, the Democrats have the numbers to pass a bill right away, but they are so afraid ( gutless wonders) of how they will look down the road if it doesn't work, that they balk. Creepy little critters, those Dems.
 

sortaisle

Livin the cardboard dream
The whole financial meltdown is based on one thing. Greed. The government made the loan standards easy to let people who never owned a home before more accessible. Is that such a bad thing? No, not in the least. The government made it accessible to the financial institutions, but it's the institutions CHOICE to use those loan standards. Now what are these institutions going to tell their shareholders when the chance for an obscene amount of money to be made comes along? That they think it's a bad idea and they'll regret it in the future? Those companies would have been out of business overnight. What this shows me, is that the base ideas of economies here in America are sound. The economics work. It's the choices of those running the economy that has failed us. The government can regulate how they do business if we let them, but that would make us a social government, and that's not who we are at heart. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but from what I can see and tell, we have a freedom to make money how we want to. It's when the love of money takes a precedent over the common good that meltdowns happen.
 
Last edited:

UPS Lifer

Well-Known Member
You know, the Democrats have the numbers to pass a bill right away, but they are so afraid ( gutless wonders) of how they will look down the road if it doesn't work, that they balk. Creepy little critters, those Dems.

This is why the Republicans are balking. There has been no bi-partisan input from the Executive Branch's bill, but the Dems want Reps to back the plan so that during the elections the Reps can't come back to the Dems and say this bill was only supported by the democrats...

So, now some real bi-partisan effort can move forward with a REAL compromise. This bill should be a better suited for the American people with less risk.

If we had real leaders in Washington they wouldn't be worried about who is on board and just pass the bill.

So gutless wonders was quite kind! There are polls out there that show teh American people are 97% against the Paulson Bill!
 

UPS Lifer

Well-Known Member
DollarBill.jpg

I had 10 one dollar bills in my wallet yesterday when I went to bed. I woke up this morning and found only one one dollar bill and it looked like this!!:surprised:
DollarBill.jpg
 

tieguy

Banned
it may be time to stop worrying about the who screwed up scenario and start worrying about where its going to end up. Banks and other companies are starting to fall like domino's. Have we had a crisis involving financial institutions this serious since the depression?
 

sortaisle

Livin the cardboard dream
just about every election year there is a market crisis. no one knows what the next presidency is going to be like so there's always a dip in the market every 4 years unless of course it's obvious that the incumbent president is going to win. Whenever there's a new president, the market dips. The market it very feminine in the way it goes up and down. It's controlled entirely by emotion rather than sound logic. All it takes is one news report of a company doing something wrong and the public reacts by selling everything and causing a slump. Every time there's good news in the market, the market picks up and people buy.
 

sortaisle

Livin the cardboard dream
"The market is very feminine".......................EXCUSE ME !!??:surprised::dissapointed:

I apologize for the generality. If you can forgive that, then I would be grateful. I was just pointing out that as a whole the market reacts emotionally as most females do. I did not in any way mean any harm. Again I apologize.
 

1989

Well-Known Member
just about every election year there is a market crisis. no one knows what the next presidency is going to be like so there's always a dip in the market every 4 years unless of course it's obvious that the incumbent president is going to win. Whenever there's a new president, the market dips. The market it very feminine in the way it goes up and down. It's controlled entirely by emotion rather than sound logic. All it takes is one news report of a company doing something wrong and the public reacts by selling everything and causing a slump. Every time there's good news in the market, the market picks up and people buy.


The market moves on news everyday. It has always moved on emotion. (eg. what does todays news mean 6, 9, 12 months down the road?) What you call feminine is called volitility and is a big money maker. Nobody makes money in a stagnant market. They make money when it goes down as much as when it goes up.
 

sortaisle

Livin the cardboard dream
The market moves on news everyday. It has always moved on emotion. (eg. what does todays news mean 6, 9, 12 months down the road?) What you call feminine is called volitility and is a big money maker. Nobody makes money in a stagnant market. They make money when it goes down as much as when it goes up.

volatility is a much better word...thanks for the education.
 
Top