Reply With Quote
Yeah, Krugman loves him some Obama.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146406
Say it ain't so!
This segment ties in with the Paul Krugman article (2/8/10), in which he says the Republican Party is descending into nihilism, something that had occurred to me just recently as well. It's a complete nullification of government, making it such that nothing in this country can get done, despite the fact we're in dire straights. They're disregarding the normal senate protocols, traditions, and just plain decency to keep the country hot tied and ungovernable.
Yeah, Krugman loves him some Obama.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146406
are you a fan of krugman now?
If there had there been no stimulus package its a good bet the economy would have collapsed, the market would today be hovering around 6000, major financial ins utions were on the verge of ruin, and the housing market collapsed. Granted things are still bad but the market is now over 10000, many banks have paid back their share of the stimulus money, and the housing market has stablized for now.
Republicans have been in attack mode since Obama became President, their perceived duty to the American people seems to be criticize everything Obama does at the same time using their cute little catch phrases like "socialism", "tax and spend", and of course "appeaser". Republicans have used this propaganda to once again bamboozel the American people into believing that they have their best interests at heart. What Republicans and now the American people forget is that it was the Bush administration along with a Republican majority that put America in this mess to begin with. When George Bush was appointed to the Presidency in 2000 the national debt had been paid down to $5.7 trillion, we had a budget surplus of $236 billion, and there were 3 balanced budgets in a row.
The Republicans in their arrogance threatened the Democrats with the "nuclear option" if they even mentioned the word filibuster, they wouldn't even let Democrats meet in designated meeting rooms, instead regulating them to the basement in order to have meetings. After 8 years of Bush-Cheney the national debt doubled to over $10 trillion, record deficits became the norm, and the economy teetered on the verge of collapes. Republicans could care less about governing or helping this nation, they only care about making Obama and the Democrats look bad, and attack every piece of legislation proposed by the Obama administration as socialist programs that will bankrupt the nation. I have yet to see the Republicans take any initiative or any interest in working with Democrats to pass a health care bill, a deficit reduction bill, or a pay as you go bill, no they are only interested in getting the majority back.
Plagiarized.
...bahh....refutiate or sit down..plagiarized
Whose work am I to refute?
Has the stimulus worked or not? Answer the question..
Irrelevant. From where did you lift this?
So, it is working then...
Not really. It's rather clear you lift material to cover for your inability to produce cogent work yourself.
Please...this from a guy who posts article after article with a single reoccurring theme...
Aren't you tired of taking it from both sides tonight?
Wait, don't answer that.
the economy would not have collapsed. that was a lie the bankters told you to scare you less. and it worked. anyway that was tarp, not the stimulus.
financial ins utions are still on the verge of ruin because they still haven't gotten rid of any toxic assets. all we did was postpone the inevitable.
the market being over 10000 is a bad thing. that means no restructuring has taken place. all the debts are just being papered over till next time.
and the banks are borrowing from the government at 0% and lending it back to the government at 3%. that's 3% of your money being transferred directly into the coffers of the banks.
Ahhh.....how's that Kenyen birth certificate working for ya?
So going from 10.2 to 9.8 unemployment proves the stimulus isn't working?the economy would not have collapsed. that was a lie the bankters told you to scare you less. and it worked. anyway that was tarp, not the stimulus.
Gotcha!
Obama is an American citizen.
You see, a reall skeptic seeks the truth, and when he finds credible evidence, accepts it.
So, what credible evidence do you have that proves everything in the 9/11 Commission report?
I don't have to read that report to know what happened.
It was obviously a directed energy beam designed by Rumsfeld.
lol. that's the best you've got.
I was talking about Tarp. Tarp is what matters.
The stimulus was a political ploy made afterwards to make everyone forget about tarp. The stimulus is just shifting money around. Its basically meaningless.
the real unemployment rate is more like 18 percent anyway.
the biggest difference between this depression and past ones is that the poor and the elite made sure they were taken care of.
Pretty much.
The thing is, that the "win at any costs" emotional undercurrent that sees torture, and all manner of unethical things as acceptable in a "life or death war on terror", is the same force at work here.
Many, if not most, Republicans genuinely believe that the current political struggle is an existential one. Either they win or America gets destroyed.
I can understand this. I was beginning to feel the same way under the Bush administration.
The problem, however, with such emotional charge is that it tends to help people rationalize grossly unethical things, in which the ends justify the means.
The current paralysis that is probably worse than anything Democrats might realistically do, becomes preferable, because liberals and Democrats have been so demonized that they have literally become boogeymen to scare children with.
The same party that for years told Democrats "we won the election, just let us do what we want, and quit being obstructionist for the sake of political gain", now find themselves justifying and behaving EXACTLY the same way the Dems did throughout the Bush administration.
Oh yes, it would have collapsed. It would have been about as bad, if not a bit worse, than the Great Depression.
Banks would have folded, one after another, in a cascading set of failures. It is what is known as a sef-reinforcing cycle. A good example is the growing number of people with out health insurance.
People don't have health insurance. People without health insurance have to go to the hospital, and then can't pay. The hospital charges paying customers, i.e. insurance companies, more money to make up for the losses. The insurance company raises premiums, forcing a few people to drop their health insurance, adding to the number of people without health insurance, increasing the likelihood that the next person in the emergency room door will not be able to pay.
Large bank A collapses, making its stock worthless, and its bonds severely impaired. The next bank B, heavily leveraged and holding a fair amount of Bank A stock and bonds, suddenly loses asset value, and further loses the ability to borrow money affordably. It must operate at a short term loss, meaning it cannot meet its own debt obligations either.
Bank B collapses. Bank C holding some assets of both banks A and B, now has a larger write-off than Bank B and because it's capital structure is just as leveraged, collapses faster.
Bank D, holding bonds and stocks of the first three banks, but less leveraged now loses asset value, AND the value of it's stock is in the toilet, making it unable to raise new capital to cover its expenses, etc, etc, etc.
A cascading set of failures, very domino-like in their collapses.
Owner's equity in banks represent the reserve cushion you hear talked about in the news.
Assets (investments and loans) - Liabilities (deposits and borrowed money) = Equity (reserves)
100 - 90 = 10
The above bank having 100 dollars in assets and 90 dollars in liabilities has 10 dollars in reserve. This means it can sustain a 10% loss and still have enough money to cover it's liability. 11% or more puts it in the hole. 11% swings are fairly rare.
Now the bank wants to sexify its returns. It borrows 500 dollars and loans that money out at a slightly higher rate. This is called "leverage"
100+500 = 600 and 90+500 = 590
Bank has grown by 6 times, the CEO looks like a genius, gets a fat bonus, and the original investors get nice returns.
600 - 590 = 10 The exact same amount of equity as before, but the stock went up becauase it is earning a bit more income from the new loans.
But let's impair 5% of those new loans, so they default entirely. 500 * .05 = 25
500 - 25 = 475
Now add 475 and 100, the ordiginal assets together, with the liabilities unchanged.
575 - 590 = -15
oops.
If you do a little math, the new, more leveraged bank, now only needs to lose 10/500 = 2% of its value to have all the equity wiped out, and 2.1% of the asset value to be insolvent. 2.1% swings happen VERY often.
I am not a banker, but I understood what would have happened, had we not propped up the first few dominoes.
It ing sucked. I am really really really ing pissed.
But TARP was better than the alternative.
TARP may indeed have "saved us" from Great Depression 2.0, but if the eventual result is an even worse crash, sovereign debt default or currency collapse, I'm not so sure I wouldn't have taken the depression instead.
http://www.democraticunderground.com...mesg_id=433417
Please, take a seat over there.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
