Off Topic · Stupid people might be breaking Obamas cahones (page 1)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wall-St-ju...

and maybe he hasn't been perfect, but results are results--bottom line. He's going to have a lot to stand on in 1 .5 years imho. The US was in the tank---I mean credit had all but stopped markets plunging and you have to give the credit where its due. Im voting him back in--while he has short comings I find him to be a trust worthy diligent President who has earned 4 more years.

A lot to stand on? Maybe. But he'll have to battle against a corporate controlled media that wants Republicans in power so they can get their tax giveaways.

Both good points. But somehow I expect 2010 to be a Democratic year - especially if the Republicans nominate Palin.

If Tea Party is really sincire they will have to accept cut backs in Government (thats what they want!) but the pain that comes with it.

Also Taxes will have to go up. Mortgage interest exemption, Gas, etc. If this happens an evironment of cutbacks may make corp. tax increases acceptable IF, and a big IF the ecnonomy keeps improving but employment raises. IF not you can't do as corp. will whine about profits not enough to hire.

Its smoke and mirrors but the environment has to be right.

In this environment Obama gets smoked.

I usually vote incumbants in to finish the job even when I don't like them. VOted "W" second time but not the first. Lets be real, John Kerry was not the deal.

Hilary was suppose to get it. Keep the "Yale" secret society in place. She would have been a better choice. I like Obama BTW, just I don't get emotional about this stuff. He got my nod and likley will get it again. Let him finish the job but with a proper administration instead of the one who helped him get elected. Dude has to advertise his accomplishments and sell himself. Its a game and he has to play it.

thank bush not obama. papers just came out that $3.3 trillion of taxpayer dollars was given to the financial sector to bail it out; not the orginal $700+ billion figure that was originally quoted. sickening. wall street is a parasite on the economy, if it shut down tomorrow capitalism would be well served.

cheers wrote:thank bush not obama. papers just came out that $3.3 trillion of taxpayer dollars was given to the financial sector to bail it out; not the orginal $700+ billion figure that was originally quoted. sickening. wall street is a parasite on the economy, if it shut down tomorrow capitalism would be well served.

Really? Really?

I voted for him the first time around but unless the alternative is a complete turd, I will not vote to re-elect Obama. The man consistently bites off more than he can chew. He tackles financial services reform, doesn't see it through, and now the implementers of his policy will be Republicans and despite claiming reform he picked from the same Goldman Sachs tree. Then he moves onto an ambitious healthcare platform. And then all the morality issues of the world. Etc, etc. He's the prototypical all sizzle, no steak PG. I'd just assume PICK ONE and get her done instead of trying to get that eight paragraph homage published in middle school textbooks.

SupremeCommander wrote:I voted for him the first time around but unless the alternative is a complete turd, I will not vote to re-elect Obama. The man consistently bites off more than he can chew. He tackles financial services reform, doesn't see it through, and now the implementers of his policy will be Republicans and despite claiming reform he picked from the same Goldman Sachs tree. Then he moves onto an ambitious healthcare platform. And then all the morality issues of the world. Etc, etc. He's the prototypical all sizzle, no steak PG. I'd just assume PICK ONE and get her done instead of trying to get that eight paragraph homage published in middle school textbooks.

i like how he went on teevee to announce a 2 year freeze of federal wages. yes. it was the federal workers that tossed $3.3 trillion taxpayers dollars into a cesspool called wall street. im tired of people who actually work for a living being scapegoated for an economic meltdown that was caused by the (bailed out) financial sector.

cheers wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:I voted for him the first time around but unless the alternative is a complete turd, I will not vote to re-elect Obama. The man consistently bites off more than he can chew. He tackles financial services reform, doesn't see it through, and now the implementers of his policy will be Republicans and despite claiming reform he picked from the same Goldman Sachs tree. Then he moves onto an ambitious healthcare platform. And then all the morality issues of the world. Etc, etc. He's the prototypical all sizzle, no steak PG. I'd just assume PICK ONE and get her done instead of trying to get that eight paragraph homage published in middle school textbooks.

i like how he went on teevee to announce a 2 year freeze of federal wages. yes. it was the federal workers that tossed $3.3 trillion taxpayers dollars into a cesspool called wall street. im tired of people who actually work for a living being scapegoated for an economic meltdown that was caused by the (bailed out) financial sector.

You have to blame EVERYONE for the economic downfall. Do you realize how irresponsible a lot of people are with their money, yet they complain b/c they think THEY should be bailed out.

Everyone from the president to the blue collar worker needs to be more responsible and should be held accountable.

Allanfan20 wrote:

cheers wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:I voted for him the first time around but unless the alternative is a complete turd, I will not vote to re-elect Obama. The man consistently bites off more than he can chew. He tackles financial services reform, doesn't see it through, and now the implementers of his policy will be Republicans and despite claiming reform he picked from the same Goldman Sachs tree. Then he moves onto an ambitious healthcare platform. And then all the morality issues of the world. Etc, etc. He's the prototypical all sizzle, no steak PG. I'd just assume PICK ONE and get her done instead of trying to get that eight paragraph homage published in middle school textbooks.

i like how he went on teevee to announce a 2 year freeze of federal wages. yes. it was the federal workers that tossed $3.3 trillion taxpayers dollars into a cesspool called wall street. im tired of people who actually work for a living being scapegoated for an economic meltdown that was caused by the (bailed out) financial sector.

You have to blame EVERYONE for the economic downfall. Do you realize how irresponsible a lot of people are with their money, yet they complain b/c they think THEY should be bailed out.

Everyone from the president to the blue collar worker needs to be more responsible and should be held accountable.

um no. you really do not have to blame everyone. the two biggest economic earthquakes in u.s. history were caused by wall street. the manufacturing sector has never caused a depression in the united states. so no, the financial sector are un-needed parasites, that has a history of harming the united states economy.

parasites that past sitting u.s. presidents have tried to protect the country from and have warned the nation about.

Capitalism without capital markets does not exist. Public corporations got there funding from capital markets.

Are you suggesting a fixed economy? Fixed markets? Really? Really?

cheers, wake up baby. more reading on the subject.

martin wrote:cheers, wake up baby. more reading on the subject.

lol i was reading on this subject when i was just a teen, used to be homework from my irish catholic school teachers. had to go to libraries to read microfiche. no google haha. but it was my normal i thought everyone had finance homework like mine. since that age i have been a student of the subject.

so i humbly say im ahead of the average and above average joe in this subject, that i dont debate it, does that even make sense lol. the newspapers of the day covered the wars between the u.s. presidents and the financial sector. the fight is just so well covered in pictures and print, that for me as a teen it was an easy A. the hardest part was just trying to type it all up, cause mayor koch didnt put pc's in the libraries, none were for sale back then lol.

martin we (me) just so dumb as a country these days. that we repeat epic past mistakes because we just arent taught our past any longer. we debate it lol. like i cant tell you what i know cause you will debate me about it wake up baby i been awake since the new york city subway fare was $0.50 cents. long time brudah. wish you well.

Nalod wrote:Capitalism without capital markets does not exist. Public corporations got there funding from capital markets.

Are you suggesting a fixed economy? Fixed markets? Really? Really?

capitalism is beautiful. capitalism does not need the financial sector, but the financial sector needs capitalism.

by definition the financial sector fixes the economy. that is why past u.s. presidents have fought against a central bank. the great depression happened shorty after the formation of the federal reserve. what wall street has done for decades is take (taxpayer money) from the "fed window" aka your pocket, then loan the money back to you.

credit default swaps hedge funds and the like have made this un-needed middleman highly toxic to even the strongest economies. $3.3 trillion went to the financial sector to "bailout." financial sector needs oceans of liquid capital to be relevant. notice i said liquid capital, not jobs. an employed person means money not in the pool.

financial sector is not a fan of employment, if you are employed, they want to keep your paycheck to a minimum. and if you on a pension, well, thats a pool of money isnt it. they want to raise your retirement age, so it takes longer for you to tap into that pool. then they want laws that allows them to tap into that pool. that is what france recently did-- they raised the retirement age, then, passed laws that allowed the financial sector to tap into the pension pool of billions of euros. nice. dont even get me started on ireland.

ah remember the social security lock box debate? lol. wall street got real close to taping that pool of money. no worries, they will try again. memories are short.

cheers wrote:

Nalod wrote:Capitalism without capital markets does not exist. Public corporations got there funding from capital markets.

Are you suggesting a fixed economy? Fixed markets? Really? Really?

capitalism is beautiful. capitalism does not need the financial sector, but the financial sector needs capitalism.

by definition the financial sector fixes the economy. that is why past u.s. presidents have fought against a central bank. the great depression happened shorty after the formation of the federal reserve. what wall street has done for decades is take (taxpayer money) from the "fed window" aka your pocket, then loan the money back to you.

credit default swaps hedge funds and the like have made this un-needed middleman highly toxic to even the strongest economies. $3.3 trillion went to the financial sector to "bailout." financial sector needs oceans of liquid capital to be relevant. notice i said liquid capital, not jobs. an employed person means money not in the pool.

financial sector is not a fan of employment, if you are employed, they want to keep your paycheck to a minimum. and if you on a pension, well, thats a pool of money isnt it. they want to raise your retirement age, so it takes longer for you to tap into that pool. then they want laws that allows them to tap into that pool. that is what france recently did-- they raised the retirement age, then, passed laws that allowed the financial sector to tap into the pension pool of billions of euros. nice. dont even get me started on ireland.

ah remember the social security lock box debate? lol. wall street got real close to taping that pool of money. no worries, they will try again. memories are short.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and yours has some merit but I would say your missing the big picture instead your focusing on the ill effects.

I won't argue every point because ecnomic theory in reality is what is practiced and its far from perfect. Never has been and never will.

By "wall st." you are really saying "banks". if you want to argue the Glass-Stegell act's demise you have some good points but hindsight gives us that persepctive. If you think Capitalism can function without the financial sector you are very very off point.

Regarding privitizeing social security I doubt it has many leggs. I too think its a bad idea because most people don't understand how to invest for the long term.

I have long contended that Wall St. does not always create demand but creates the products to satisfy it. For example why so many New Tech mutual funds before the 2000 tech implosion? Beacause of the publics appitite. Why Subprime? Because of demand. Was it right to do it to the degree it was done? Of course not. Was it wrong to combine them and give a good credit rating? That was evil and criminal. Did anyone who questioned it or thought it was illogical buy them? Most likely not. DId anyone put a gun to anyones head and make them buy it? Doubt it. Did pension groups buy them? YEs. Was the pension manager forced to do so? NOpe. Did he or she do it because the pension owners felt compelled to "keep up" because they were underfunded or greedy instead of cautious? Could be. Just one instance where demand is created and satisfied. Does that make "Wall St." entirely at fault? Not in my opinion. Should big government who is corrupt by lobby groups over see "Greed"? I guess only in hindsight when it fails..

Subprime also has its merits. Its very profitable but thats because there is huge risk. Maybe not everyone should be able to buy a car with bad credit, but if they do they pay huge rates to off set the risk. Those profits have to off set the many defaults. If you don't want to pay high rates, take the bus. Its cold but if you don't have high rates there is no money available. If its not done legally, there are plenty of loan sharks in other places that will lend you money at crazy rates and break your legs and take what ever they can from you. The demand fuels it.

Yes, in a perfect world there should be greater gov't controls. Down side of oversight is panic. When Junk bonds ruled they day they essentially were acting like IPO's. IN fact Intel's first funding was thru junk bonds. When that bubble burst people went to jail and the gov't paniced and forced liquidation. That was proven to be a mistake. They should have unwound it slower. People made a lot of money on that panic.

Credit default swaps were abused and in the face of panic fell into a very dark trading practice. The intent was not to profit from failing firms but protect bond holders from default. This needs more attention.

Capital Markets will always bring mistakes but also great efficiency.

Eliminating them is not somting that is called "capitalism" and that system has far greater inefficient aspects and really huge government. Our history is to Regulate, indict those who persued criminal profits and move on. Bailouts are tough to argue because they are preemptive in nature. YOu don't get the benefit of hindsight if the ecnomy does colapse. OR you can say "we should have bailed them out"!

Its all in theory, its all imperfect, and can be argued for days on end without any real conclusion. Respectfully yours is charged a bit with emotion with a bias toward recent ills. Im not saying its wrong but its very incomplete in the large context.

I am sighting just a few examples to discuss but we could go on for days..........

I had heard that one before but forgot how dead on he was. George Carlin was the man!