Thread: This Is Not A CraigsList Notice

Tweet

Originally Posted by shine

it was paid for by money raided from social security thanks to lbj.

Shine!! Now your talking!! What they did to Social Security is down right CRIMINAL!! Them bastards are not even in the system and get to control it!! I believe it started with JFK(not sure) If Social Security was left alone with conservative investments it would be in the black for trillions!! Pete

agreed . that is why clinton got things done . obama's agenda has always been way too far left . environment and social programs are all i've heard from him.
i've learned over the years that employment is the key. put people back to work and cut spending is exactly what clinton worked at. you can t tax our way out of this. 5% of the people back to work will generate far more revenue than taxing the top 1% . jmho . if romney doesn't perform we'll fire his ass too.....

Couldn't agree more Roger, but it sure doesn't help when you have a congress that blindly follows along passing legislation then to worry about what it contains.

johnson was the first to take money from it but never replace it. carter was second i believe. one thing clinton did that was wrong was to increase the tax on social security. but i blame that on his idiot vice president gore. we have got to get someone in office that can run numbers and fix it . not some hope and change dreamer with 0 experience at anything.

Less than 1 % of a president's original ideas are ever put into law. It's just the way the system works. That's why I have a hard time getting so excited about the horse and pony show of elections like this. It simply doesn't matter all that much. We are so embedded in who's party is where is the main reason why the government design is out dated in need of real major changes. No ref's to the current way of doing things,but major changes. Outdated by the economic system that founding fathers could have never foresee. We can't continue to give the mass public a placebo(sp) pill to swallow and expect them not to realize once and for all they are being duped. Voting counts down is a clear indication of votes don't matter that much. And all for the same reasons I listed above.

simple , you dont vote you cant bitch and your opinion doesn't count. the ones who dont vote are pretty much the ones with their hand out. if you think obama is doing a great job vote for him. if not vote for romney. but constantly complaining about the system does nothing. i have more faith in my country than you and refuse to just throw my hands up and give up.

10 years from now we will still be hearing how bush did it and ron paul got robbed .

Originally Posted by shine

simple , you dont vote you cant bitch and your opinion doesn't count. the ones who dont vote are pretty much the ones with their hand out. if you think obama is doing a great job vote for him. if not vote for romney. but constantly complaining about the system does nothing. i have more faith in my country than you and refuse to just throw my hands up and give up.

10 years from now we will still be hearing how bush did it and ron paul got robbed .

Well said, Shine. The defeatist attitudes are our worst enemy, and the "whole system's broke and doesn't work anymore" is simply hogwash. The system works just fine, but every ship has to have a captain that the crew respects, trusts, and that has vision to know which way to steer the ship. I don't get caught up in the election hooplah, and I agree 100% with your approach about how to apply your vote. The worst thing is to throw up one's hands and say, "It doesn't really matter." I'm sorry, but my future, and more important the future for my grandchildren matters very much, and we are currently a ship without a rudder, much less a respected captain to grab the tiller.

Yes, vote or sit down and keep quiet got an opinion, tell it to the wall. Voting is the only way your complaint will be registered, if done intellectually and not emotionally can produce the proper results.

Like the guy in the garage cussing up a storm cause he cannot fix the car or a fastener is giving him a hard time. Every here of anyone fixing a car by cussing, ranting, throwing tools at it?

Take a pill, and a breath, observer the problem, get the tool (VOTE) and get on with life. Crying a river just adds water to the river..

Just like the single issue folks who won't vote for someone because they are pro this or anti that, you have to look at the big picture. Take for instance Akin here in Missouri. He definitely put his foot in his mouth and has apologized, but do I want 6 more years of McCaskill, I think not.

Originally Posted by rspears

Well said, Shine. The defeatist attitudes are our worst enemy, and the "whole system's broke and doesn't work anymore" is simply hogwash. The system works just fine, but every ship has to have a captain that the crew respects, trusts, and that has vision to know which way to steer the ship. I don't get caught up in the election hooplah, and I agree 100% with your approach about how to apply your vote. The worst thing is to throw up one's hands and say, "It doesn't really matter." I'm sorry, but my future, and more important the future for my grandchildren matters very much, and we are currently a ship without a rudder, much less a respected captain to grab the tiller.

Originally Posted by pepi

Yes, vote or sit down and keep quiet got an opinion, tell it to the wall. Voting is the only way your complaint will be registered, if done intellectually and not emotionally can produce the proper results.

Like the guy in the garage cussing up a storm cause he cannot fix the car or a fastener is giving him a hard time. Every here of anyone fixing a car by cussing, ranting, throwing tools at it?

Take a pill, and a breath, observer the problem, get the tool (VOTE) and get on with life. Crying a river just adds water to the river..

The ship without a rudder is the part I am saying people need to buy into.I too am very concerned about my and my grandchildren future as a loyal American. I am not willing to make that bet on a system that is too old to be effective any longer. And the pill I am talking about swallowing is a vote for a president being for the most part meaningless. And yes I am aware by saying that is does kick the ladder out of a concept most people have.

Really no crying going on here. Just a suggestion what to really do to fix the problem.

Shine-considering both of us came from a era of the 60's,new unheard of ideas are not that far reaching. I think for anyone to part take in voting you first have to think by doing so our way of doing business is still effective. If you don think that,then what's the point??.

Yes I well know you can do more inside the circle than outside of it. Me,I want to change the circle completely.

Phew! You guys were on fire yesterday and into today.

Since this is primarily an automotive site I'll use an automotive reference. We are often asked to diagnose a problem. Some are more successful than others at diagnosing. Often that difference lies in level of experience and working knowledge of whatever the subject/issue is. Likewise, the success of the analysis is dependent on getting accurate and thorough identification of cause and effect.

With that notion in mind I will AGAIN raise a couple questions that I have asked more than once in this thread that have NEVER been answered, yet the accusations continue to be repeated without substantiation. I ask this now probably boring question because I observe a posting yesterday that in the first paragraph blames Bush for bad outcomes, and in the next exonerates Obama as being without equal blame for similar outcomes. I know, we hear that everyday from a biased media, but it's still fun to try and get a reasonable response. So here goes: What specific regulations did Bush unilaterally repeal that caused the economy to collapse? How did the so called Bush tax cuts cause high debt when revenues actually increased after the cuts were implemented? I'll stop there and spare challenging the other common rubrics......

As for thinking Social Security is some kind of fund, disabuse yourself of that notion. IT'S A TAX!! And just like any other tax, it gets transferred from the payor to the spending machine that is government from the get-go. You have no ownership of that money, not reserve account, not inverstment account, no legal claim to any future benefits in return. Don't take my word for it, here's the actual Social Security system website: Social Security Online History Pages To continue to believe otherwise is wishful thinking and refusing to diagnose correctly.

NOBODY creates "a job". Well, okay, Governments may "create a job", and some concerned fathers in law who believe they have a deadbeat son in law may "create a job", but I'm thinking in the real world. A "job" results when one individual decides to provide value to his fellow man, and seeks to exchange that value for value in kind. If he or she is successful in attracting "customers" who wish to participate in the exchange and the number of trading partners exceed his or her abilities to provide that value in sufficient quantity to meet demand, they will hire someone to assist in providing that value. Thus you have a business owner/manager and an employee. The owner/manager acts as a facilitator for the employee to gain access to a value exchange that the employee previously was unable to facilitate on his own for whatever reason. This cooperative effort benefits all parties if it involves free exchange. The customer gets something of value to them in exchange for something of value they previously possessed/produced, the business owner gets that value exchange and shares it with his employee who voluntarily joined the exchange process. You corporation haters fail to recognize this set of dynamics and choose to spew blind hate. Are there corporations that abuse the system? Sure.............but your making a blanket condemnation of "corporations" indiscriminatly is dishonest. I got an especially good chuckle in my buddy Alan's post mocking corporations when he tagged GE as one of the "evil" ones to take over government. Oh the irony that the guy he voted for in '08 and I'm sure intends to vote for again this year is deeply involved in a crony relationship with GE. Ah the web we weave..............

You want jobs? Seek out those who have had success creating real jobs (and no, that's not a veiled Romney endorsement, it's a practical suggestion for all time), or those who have demonstrated they understand how jobs are created. Then, don't put obstructions in their way like labor laws that overly favor employees or competitors. Avoid ideas that can't find natural customers who normally make a buying decision based on how well they will be benefited by the transaction. In other words, don't try and force the marketplace to believe in pixie dust energy schemes and electric vehicles that haven't progressed enough in the last 100 years to present greater value than the alternatives.

I assume that was directed at me about the Bush Administration and the Banking and Wall Street debacle? Here's some of the more current reading I've done about it.

Discount it all you want, doesn't really matter. Deregulation of the banking industry was overdone, as with many things, greed took over. The process started in the Reagan years, and the Bush folks picked up where Reanganomics stopped.

Anyway, it's a bit long, but enjoy the read;


How Deregulation Eviscerated the Banking Sector Safety Net and Spawned the U.S. Financial Crisis
JANUARY 13, 2009
BY SHAH GILANI, Capital Wave Strategist, Money Morning
No one person is responsible for the credit crisis, the failure of investment banks, the insolvency of commercial banks world-wide, the implosion of the world's stock markets, or for leading us to the precipice of another great depression.

The truth is there were many.

Fundamental and pragmatic banking regulations, which arose from the devastating financial collapses of the Great Depression, for decades strengthened U.S. banks and capital markets, making them the twin engines of American growth and the envy of the world.

The systematic dismantling of those same regulations by greedy bankers began in earnest in 1980, peaked in 1999, and finally climaxed with an insane Securities and Exchange Commission ruling in April 2004, a final decision that paved the way for the implosion of everything regulation was designed to protect.

Just how did we get here?

Wall Street bankers, their exorbitantly well-paid lobbying army of former congressmen and former regulators, their greatly contributed-to sitting legislators and, most egregiously, the self-righteous and still mega-rich "former" Street executives have systematically eviscerated the muscle and bones from the regulatory bodies charged with protecting us from banks' self-destructive greed. An inordinately powerful group of executive insiders from the once-deeply respected House of Goldman Sachs (GS) have served as U.S. Treasury secretaries and in innumerable other administrative capacities.

A Reflection on Reform

The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, was the first major reform of the U.S. banking system since the Great Depression.

While touted as a boon to consumers, the law was actually a gold mine for bankers. Among other requirements and banker "gifts" the 1980 Act's provisions:

Lowered the mandatory reserve requirements banks keep in non-interest bearing accounts at U.S. Federal Reserve banks.
Established a five-member committee, the Depository Institutions Deregulation Committee, to phase out federal interest rate ceilings on deposit accounts over a six-year period.
Increased Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) coverage from $40,000 to $100,000.
Allowed depository institutions, including savings and loans and other thrift institutions, access to the Federal Reserve Discount Window for credit advances.
And pre-empted state usury laws that limited the rates lenders could charge on residential mortgage loans.
In 1980, in a virtual landslide, Ronald Reagan was elected and grabbed the conservative mantle. A year later, the shock troops of the heralded Reagan Revolution launched their attack and embarked on a massive, systematic de-regulatory campaign. President Reagan's first treasury secretary, former Merrill Lynch & Co. Chief Executive Officer Donald T. Regan, became chairman of the Depository Institutions Deregulation Committee.

In a burst of deregulatory bravado in 1982, Treasury Secretary Regan ushered through the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act. Key provisions of the Act ultimately coalesced with Treasury Secretary Regan's protection of the lucrative "brokered deposits" business, in which Merrill was a major player, and paved the way for the future collapse of the savings and loan industry.


Shattered Glass

The ultimate prize was to be the undoing of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Glass-Steagall, officially known as the Banking Act of 1933, mandated the separation of banks according to the types of business they conducted. Investment banks, whose securities related activities resulted in relatively large risks, were to be separate from commercial banks, whose depositors needed greater protection. The Act created deposit insurance and the government wasn't about to allow taxpayer-backed insurance of commercial bank deposits to be exposed to securities related risks. It was a prudent and sensible separation. Bankers tried for years to undermine and overturn Glass-Steagall, but it took time.

In 1987, Alan Greenspan replaced Paul A. Volcker – the stalwart Federal Reserve Board chairman, national inflation-fighting hero and active proponent of Glass-Steagall (and now economic confidant of President-elect Obama).

In its twilight days, the Reagan administration was determined to further fertilize the seeds of deregulation and Greenspan's Ayn Rand-inspired "objectivist," free-market philosophies would be the perfect embodiment of the deregulatory movement.

Securitization Enters the Scene

A year later – in 1988 – two very quiet revolutions sprouted that would ultimately hand bankers twin throttles to rain terror on us all.

That year, the Basel Accord established international risk-based capital requirements for deposit-taking commercial banks. In a byproduct of the calculations of what constituted mortgage-related risk (by nature of the loans' long maturities and illiquidity) lenders should be expected to set aside substantial reserves; however, marketable securities that could theoretically be sold easily would not require significant reserves.

To obviate the need for such reserves, and to free up the money for more-productive pursuits, banks made a wholesale shift from originating and holding mortgages to packaging them and holding mortgage assets in a now-securitized form. Not inconsequentially, this would lead to a disconnect between asset-quality considerations and asset-liquidity considerations.

In 1993, with her agenda accomplished, Wendy Gramm resigned from her CFTC post to take a seat on the Enron Corp. board as a member of its audit committee. We all know what happened there. Enron's fraud and implosion became the poster child for deregulation run amok and ultimately helped spawn Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, which has its own issues.

The constant flow of money to lobbyists and into legislators' campaign coffers was paying off for the banking interests. The Fed, under Chairman Greenspan, was methodically deconstructing the foundation of Glass-Steagall. The final breaching of the wall occurred in 1998, when Citibank was bought by Travelers. The deal married Citibank, a commercial bank, with Travelers' Solomon, Smith Barney investment bank and the Travelers insurance business.


Phil Gramm – the fire breathing free-marketer, Texas senator, and chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs – rode to the rescue, propelled by a sea of more than $300 million in lobbying and campaign contributions. In 1999, in the ultimate proof that money is power, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, at once doing away with Glass-Steagall and the 1956 BHC Act, and crowning Citigroup Inc. (C) as the new "King of the Hill."

From his position of power, Sen. Gramm consistently leveraged his Ph.D in economics and free-market ideology to espouse the virtues of subprime lending, where he famously once stated: "I look at subprime lending and I see the American Dream in action."

If helping struggling borrowers pursue their homeownership dreams was such a noble cause, it might have been incumbent upon the senator to not block legislation advocating the curtailment of predatory lending practices. From 1989 through 2002, federal records show that Sen. Gramm was the top recipient of contributions from commercial banks and among the top five recipients of campaign contributions from Wall Street.

The "New" Math

On April 28, 2004, in a fitting and perhaps flagrant final act of eviscerating prudent regulation, the SEC ruled that investment banks may essentially determine their own net capital. The insanity of that allowance is only surpassed by the fact that the SEC allowed the change because it was simultaneously demanding greater scrutiny of the books and records of what were the holding companies of investment banks and all their affiliates.

The tragedy is that the SEC never used its new powers to examine the banks. The idea was that Consolidated Supervised Entities (CSEs) could use internal models to determine risk and compliance with net capital requirements. In reality, what the investment banks did was essentially re-cast hybrid capital instruments, subordinated debt, deferred tax returns and securities with no ready market into "healthy" capital assets against which they reduced reserve requirements for net capital calculations and increased their leverage to as much as 30:1. [Click here to read "How Wall Street Manufactures Financial Services Products," an insider's look at how greed on Wall Street results in unscrupulous investment instruments]

When the meltdown came the leverage and concentration of bad assets quickly resulted in the shotgun marriage of insolvent Bear Stearns Cos. to JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM), the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holding (LEHMQ), the sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America Corp. (BAC), and the rushed acceptance of applications by Goldman and Morgan Stanley (MS) to convert to Bank Holding Companies so they could feed at the taxpayer bailout trough and feast on the Fed's new Smörgåsbord of liquidity handouts. There are no more CSEs (the SEC announced an end to that program in September). The old investment bank model is dead.

Anyway, this whole thread has became so negative, just like the campaigns it criticizes.... I haven't seen anything in here that is positive, or shows what could or should be done but rather just a constant rehashing of what was (yeah, I'm guilty too) and how one man (Obama) killed everything good in America all by himself in just 4 short years!!! Been listening to some of the rhetoric from the Republican Convention, haven't heard much positive there, either. Doubt the Democratic Convention will be any different!!!!

Think I'll just back out of this thread and leave it to those much more eloquent then I. Not into debate, more into Hot Rods. Just wish something, anything positive would come out of this 2012 election, doubt it will. Should Romney win, we'll just hear his version of how badly things are screwed up and it takes time to fix things....Same talk, different speaker!!!! IF (great big if) Romney wins and IF he can surround himself with an intelligent cabinet and advisers (and hopefully some new speech writers, too) and IF the Congress could somehow again return to be a NON PARTISAN method of conducting business, maybe we'll come out of this current economic chaos. A lot of IF's there!!!!! Good luck to all of us.... I'm off of this one, can't stand anymore bad news, name calling, and blame games. Somebody let me know if something positive develops, I'll be staying with the Hot Rod stuff...........

This is to 1 gary...You keep spuing that we need CHANGE Recreat government. You sir sound like "O" What is your plan ?? How would impliment it?? Talk is cheap. It is to me obvious that the system need a little polishing but to say it dosen't work in my eyes is wrong. I worked for a Large company for over 20 years before it closed. At age 50 I moved to another state, started a business and continued to work till I managed to wreck my body to the point it hurt to get up in the morning. I finely retired at age 62. Closed the business down and quit advertising. That was a while back I still get calls from customers some I help others if job is to big I refer them to others. If you don't work for what you want it is worthless. I hate it when people say Change this change that when they haven't any clue what the hell they are talking about and no sugestions as to what to do...BUT lets get'r done...OK I'm off my soap box

Being someone who values language I will point out that while an article like that (Daves post) does contain some factual information, it's use of selective inflamatory language should be an instant tip off to it being incomplete in it's bias. The mention of Presidents Carter and Clinton are done in a very benign fashion, whereas Reagan "released shock troops" demonstrates at least contempt. I see no mention of President Bush initiating any action that led to actual deregulation, only a reference to the SEC chosing to interpret rule making authority in a specific way that the author opines was detremental. I say opines because he didn't offer a specific cause/effect relationship except to conflate that a failure in the financial markets happened after that action occurred...........so there for it was causal? Implication at best. He goes on to attack legislation by Sen. Gramm, but fails to mention a Clinton backed rachet up of subprime lending under the Affordable Housing Act, a Carter era program to force banks to lend to poorly qualified borrowers. No mention of Attorney General Reno threatening banks with prosecution for the practice of loan qualifying known as "red lining". No mention of Fanny or Freddie Mac having a hand in backstopping the bundling of home mortgages in an effort to create vehicles that would "bury" the bad loans in bundles with good ones to "spread the risk". No mention that a freshman representative from Wisconsin named Ryan proposed a bill in 2000 to rein in the underwriting of sketchy loans by Fannie and Freddie, and that he was only able to get 12 (!) cosponsors (shame on both Dems and Reps there). And no mention that Barney Frank killed a Bush White House proposal of legislation that would curtail the wild west actions of Fannie and Freddie.

That article may be a reasonable stimulus for further study but as a definitive analysis of what caused the financial collapse it neither proves/defines Bush responsibility nor discloses accurately all of the factors that contributed. Beside it's obvious political bias enumerated by the various negative adjectives employed strategically.