The ongoing financial turmoil and financial discussion thread

[Ronald Pagan]

Fantastic circle jerk going on in here.

This is how I see it:

The American economy has been in decline thanks to neglect. The Obama budget, in large part tries to outline a path to rejuvenate the key imputs of the economy and fiscal stability. Wow, you might say, this is not fiscally responsible let alone stable.

But you need to look at the demographics and factor inputs that make a healthy economy. It takes healthy people. Obama's budget creates significant new spending to restructure the health delivery programs and eventually make them more efficient. Health care costs will be 40% of GDP in 40 years if something isn't done to rapidly usher in efficiency to the sector (spending on digitally transferring patient records to electronic databases) and to promtoe health.

Furthermore, much of the spending is one schools and universities. This is a statistically proven variable on economic growth. Spending in these areas should not be considered a waste.

And all the while, while people are here flagging Obama for running a huge deficit, the bottom line is that no government in the past 50 years in the U.S. has thought it necessary to tax citizens at the level to sustainably provide the government support that they demand. This isn't Obama's problem, it's a systemic issue. He's making good on reforming the tax system so that the wealth pay more and have less tax credit loopholes.

Of course keep farming out the negative articles that have absolutely NOTHING to offer to the debate besides criticism. Big contribution you're making there Azure. You're making your point that you don't like Obama. That's about the only point you're making.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I read that whole thing in Amy Pohlers voice.

Haha, awesome, that is EXACTLY what I was going for!

Heh, to be honest I haven't seen enough of her to know that's something she says a lot. I used to watch SNL a lot but haven't in recent years. My shock was just my natural reaction.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by fotze

What I don't understand is all of a sudden all these "experts" are experts on how to fix the problem. None of them saw it coming, the biggest "experts" actually caused this problem/destroyed the world/etc, yet now they know exactly how to fix it. Sorry but I call bullsh$t. What this has taught us tis that no one knows anything and evry expert is about promoting themself first and looking out for number one.

Couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by fotze

I am skeptical as hell about the spending your way out of debt technique but not because of any of these ######bags says so.

Well, I think massive spending did help bring the nation out of the great depression. (obviously there were other factors too, like the war) I think the biggest thing to make sure of is that, the money that is being spent, is being spent on important sustainable things. Things that create jobs, encourage new sectors, set up the future for positive change (as has been mentioned education, which will also help in the new jobs category).

I can see why some people are very scared about some of the projects that have been approved. While I think this bill is one of the most debated and planned bills in recent memory, I also think it's still a little too 'business as usual' and is still not good enough. There's still congressional games, bi-partisan politics, and pork.

I really really don't know if this will get fixed from within the government unless it gets to true crisis levels. By then, there is no point anyway, that's supposed to be what the government is preventing.

Eventually, whether it's near in the future, or somewhere further down the road, this downspin WILL change how things are done in Washington. If the politicians and people of power are smart, they will grow up and play nice and fix it now. And they will get to keep a lot of their power.

But if they don't, things will eventually get changed drastically, because the country will be affected drastically. And even from a selfish standpoint, those in power should realize that is something they don't want.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by fotze

What I don't understand is all of a sudden all these "experts" are experts on how to fix the problem. None of them saw it coming, the biggest "experts" actually caused this problem/destroyed the world/etc, yet now they know exactly how to fix it. Sorry but I call bullsh$t. What this has taught us tis that no one knows anything and evry expert is about promoting themself first and looking out for number one.

I am skeptical as hell about the spending your way out of debt technique but not because of any of these ######bags says so.

Pretty funny, and not saying that I disagree. But the same goes for a lot of the posters in this thread. If people saw this coming or really feel/felt that the market was due to get pounded as far down as it has and did nothing to at least protect themselves, (if not profit), then its a giant moot point.

That, and we can't really let the average consumer off the hook for creating this mess here. Fact is that a lot of people overspent here...at some point people have to take responsibility for their actions and not just blame the institutions that lent them the money,etc.

[brownie]

Originally Posted by fotze

What I don't understand is all of a sudden all these "experts" are experts on how to fix the problem. None of them saw it coming, the biggest "experts" actually caused this problem/destroyed the world/etc, yet now they know exactly how to fix it. Sorry but I call bullsh$t. What this has taught us tis that no one knows anything and evry expert is about promoting themself first and looking out for number one.

I am skeptical as hell about the spending your way out of debt technique but not because of any of these ######bags says so.

Exactly..... wasn't it the experts who were saying that a barrel of oil would hit $200 about 10 months ago?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Of course keep farming out the negative articles that have absolutely NOTHING to offer to the debate besides criticism. Big contribution you're making there Azure. You're making your point that you don't like Obama. That's about the only point you're making.

You mean like what you guys* have been doing past 8 years?

*meaning GWB critics sitting on their high horses

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Speaking of powerful rhetoric... the article seems to contain nothing else.

Yup, when someone voices his critical opinion of Obama's policies and god forbid supports it with analysis and data, it can be thrown away as spewing rhetorics.

Meanwhile, delivering a heart-warming speeches about "responsibility" and "change" and "hope" while wearing a nice tie and a wide smile while tying another debt around the neck of the country, is a sure sign of great leadership of the right man to make difficult decisions that will not please polls but need to be made anyway.

[macker]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Fantastic circle jerk going on in here.

This is how I see it:

The American economy has been in decline thanks to neglect. The Obama budget, in large part tries to outline a path to rejuvenate the key imputs of the economy and fiscal stability. Wow, you might say, this is not fiscally responsible let alone stable.

But you need to look at the demographics and factor inputs that make a healthy economy. It takes healthy people. Obama's budget creates significant new spending to restructure the health delivery programs and eventually make them more efficient. Health care costs will be 40% of GDP in 40 years if something isn't done to rapidly usher in efficiency to the sector (spending on digitally transferring patient records to electronic databases) and to promtoe health.

Furthermore, much of the spending is one schools and universities. This is a statistically proven variable on economic growth. Spending in these areas should not be considered a waste.

And all the while, while people are here flagging Obama for running a huge deficit, the bottom line is that no government in the past 50 years in the U.S. has thought it necessary to tax citizens at the level to sustainably provide the government support that they demand. This isn't Obama's problem, it's a systemic issue. He's making good on reforming the tax system so that the wealth pay more and have less tax credit loopholes.

Of course keep farming out the negative articles that have absolutely NOTHING to offer to the debate besides criticism. Big contribution you're making there Azure. You're making your point that you don't like Obama. That's about the only point you're making.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Even Buffett was saying that he thought he paid low taxes and that the IRS came out with a study that showed that in 2006 the top 400 income earners in the US paid taxes at a rate of 17% and this was the lowest level in history. He went on to say that just because he is good at capital allocation doesn't mean that he should pay less taxes. I guess he has capitalized on capitalism to the point where he doesn't mind giving back more to the government.

Buffett : We are going to be spending something like 3.6 Trillion in the next year or so and guys like me have gotten off too light....

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by fotze

I think people assumed the giant institutions with multi-million dollar heads knew how to assess risk and wouldn't gamble away our money. We know there are terrible irresponsible consumers, its a given, a constant, but we non-experts didn't realize that A) banks would give those consumers mortgages on 5 houses and B) Leverage these 5 terrible mortgages so they could make giant bets and, C) know that these schemes would affect us. Just greedy ######bags working toward an annual bonus and nothing more.

Well exactly. What they did was worse than the consumers on so many levels.

For one, as you mentioned, they should have known better. They have the fancy degrees and such, they should have been able to see it coming. I'm sure some of them did, they just went along with it cause it was making money or it's what everyone else was doing.

Two, their ambitions were much more greedy than the consumer. a lot of these people just wanted to own a house, have a freakin place to live. Should they have known their situation? Absolutely. But in many cases, they were just trying to make ends meet and have a place to live. It was the bankers, and more importantly the companies that were just trying to add to record profits, justify exorberant bonuses, knowing they were gambling as many people have put it, on the outcome.

And as I always mention, people like to point the finger at the homeowner and ask why they don't take any repsonsibilty. Last time I checked, losing your house was a pretty big reality check bringing you your responsibility. Yeah they made the mistake, but they are paying for it. Which is more than can be said about a lot of the other people more drectly responsible for causing it.

Lastly, on the issue of credit card debt and such, which is probably a more grey issue, I still have to look at the companies and banks for their level or responsibility. Yes people charge way too much, and buy what they don't need and there is no excuse for it. But credit card interest is far too high to begin with for the average consumer and the rules are in place to help the companies make as much money as possible. Not to help the person pay off their debt, and use credit responsibly.

No these people shouldn't have their hands held and should know when to say no. But if rates weren't so cutthroat I think a lot of people would be more responsible. Instead, it traps them in a vicious loop that they have to pay to get out of.

I guess it just feels to me that the relationship is always in the banks favor unless you are very wealthy. The funny thing is banks could earn lots (maybe even more) if they encouraged actual credit 'relationships' and not just milk the customer for every dime.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Yup, when someone voices his critical opinion of Obama's policies and god forbid supports it with analysis and data, it can be thrown away as spewing rhetorics.

Meanwhile, delivering a heart-warming speeches about "responsibility" and "change" and "hope" while wearing a nice tie and a wide smile while tying another debt around the neck of the country, is a sure sign of great leadership of the right man to make difficult decisions that will not please polls but need to be made anyway.

I suppose we differ on exactly how much analysis and data there was in that article... I understand what rhetoric is, and I understand what supporting an argument with facts is. In my opinion, the article participated mostly in the former.

I have a tough time believing any other President would be doing anything differently at this point...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Of course keep farming out the negative articles that have absolutely NOTHING to offer to the debate besides criticism. Big contribution you're making there Azure. You're making your point that you don't like Obama. That's about the only point you're making.

Thats okay. You can post all the 'positive' articles about the stock market making a strong comeback, and how consumer confidence is through the roof when they appear.

Or you can just make them up. The latter might work better, since neither of the things I mentioned were happening.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I have a tough time believing any other President would be doing anything differently at this point...

I don't know. A different President might actually instill confidence in the people, instead of scaring everyone with the sensational bullcrap about the economy. All just to get policies and bills passed.

But, in regards to spending and such? McCain might SAY he wouldn't bail out GM, but he's not President either. Who knows what he would have done.

EDIT: Buffet talking about how Obama SHOULD be presenting his message to the American people.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...5294HH20090310

[Azure]

From Obama supporting Newsweek...

Obama still has the approval of the people, but the establishment is beginning to mumble that the president may not have what it takes.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/188565

From Obama supporting CBS....

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03...y4855606.shtml

Article about internal problems with the Democrats in regards to Obama's agenda.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29609567/

[Ronald Pagan]

In the, "hey look I can post articles too" file:

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama's $787-billion (U.S.) stimulus plan, which critics derided as wasteful and excessive, may in fact have been fatally modest. His proposed $3.6-trillion budget, unveiled only two weeks ago, is already out of date, based on economic assumptions that were naively optimistic. With the global recession now the worst since the Great Depression, as certified by the World Bank, the U.S. economy is deteriorating in ways not seen by anyone whose memory does not reach back to the Dirty Thirties.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ory/TPComment/



Stimulus doesn't go far enough.



Looking back at the articles you've posted you deride him for spending too much then in your most recent round you're posting articles about Obama not stimulating enough. Clearly you have no foundation for the policy direction you believe Obama should go in rather you are just posting negative articles about Obama to fan your personal dislike of him. Great. You are a hack.



Thanks.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

In the, "hey look I can post articles too" file:

Looking back at the articles you've posted you deride him for spending too much then in your most recent round you're posting articles about Obama not stimulating enough. Clearly you have no foundation for the policy direction you believe Obama should go in rather you are just posting negative articles about Obama to fan your personal dislike of him. Great. You are a hack.

Thanks.

Ah, no.

The articles don't necessarily reflect my own opinion of the 'problem.' I post articles that I find interesting. Doesn't mean I always agree with them.

My opinion is much like Daradon's. The stimulus bill has a lot of pork in it....but it also has some good parts too.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

In the, "hey look I can post articles too" file:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ory/TPComment/
Stimulus doesn't go far enough.

Pelosi to the rescue.

'open to second stimulus bill.'

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19835.html

cause the first one is working so well, we just HAVE to have two.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Slava

Pretty funny, and not saying that I disagree. But the same goes for a lot of the posters in this thread. If people saw this coming or really feel/felt that the market was due to get pounded as far down as it has and did nothing to at least protect themselves, (if not profit), then its a giant moot point.

That, and we can't really let the average consumer off the hook for creating this mess here. Fact is that a lot of people overspent here...at some point people have to take responsibility for their actions and not just blame the institutions that lent them the money,etc.

A lot of those posters took advise from our resident Financial advisers. The advise given was pretty universal and very optimistic. Just read some of it here, I can't find the older threads when I debated with Dominicwasalreadytaken. Where is he anyways, I'd love to hear what he has to say now.

Old Thread

Another beauty

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Red

A lot of those posters took advise from our resident Financial advisers. The advise given was pretty universal and very optimistic. Just read some of it here, I can't find the older threads when I debated with Dominicwasalreadytaken. Where is he anyways, I'd love to hear what he has to say now.

Old Thread

Another beauty

I don't think that we are talking about different things though. Your posts there indicate that people shouldn't take out HELOCs and spend the cash there on new TV's, etc. I'm saying basically the same thing here. Sure the bank gives you the money, but you still have to be responsible with those funds?

I didn't see any resident financial advisor say to take out a HELOC and get over-extended on new cars and TV's though...unless I missed that?

[Slava]

^^I also forgot to add that anyone taking advice from a virtually anonymous internet site and not taking the time to meet with a financial advisor directly is making an enormous mistake. You have no one to blame but yourself in that case. That is perhaps the most foolhardy that you could be!!!

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't know. A different President might actually instill confidence in the people, instead of scaring everyone with the sensational bullcrap about the economy. All just to get policies and bills passed.

So you think the current economic disaster is being 'sensationalized' by Obama? I don't see what the Administration is saying as really out of step with what other governments around the world are saying/doing. Do you want him to say 'Everything is going to be just fine.'? People should be scared, we're in an economic meltdown that will take years to recover from.

I highly doubt Obama's 'sensationalism' is the reason people have lost confidence in the economy.

But, in regards to spending and such? McCain might SAY he wouldn't bail out GM, but he's not President either. Who knows what he would have done.

Exactly... my bet is he'd be doing pretty much exactly the same thing. The Republicans are voting against all the stimulus bills because they know they'll pass anyway... they need to pass. If things go down, they can say they voted against it, if things go up... great! Win/win for Republicans denouncing the stimulus.