New law for the illegals?

[RIVERS]

You wouldn't need any extra accountants at all. In fact, you'd probably need fewer than the current 100,000 plus people employed by the IRS (that is, if this replaced the existing tax system completely and wasn't just an add-on to it, like the VAT tax that is being kicked around).


By what reasoning or facts  do you see the economy getting appreciably better? And how do you conclude the bailouts didn't cost anywhere near what was feared? GM's payback was a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. They used money from one loan to pay back another loan -- that's it. Did you really think that they some how managed to sell enough cars in the past -- what -- eight months to not only keep their operations going but also pay back an $8B loan with interest? Didn't happen.

As for the bailouts to the banks, a fairly high percentage of the banks that were given bailout money didn't need it in the first place. Paulson told them they were going to take it regardless and, those that could, paid the money back just as soon as TARP allowed them to do so. If you consider it a success to give money to a company that doesn't need it so it can pay you right back  in a few months, then I guess it was a "success."

Even so, the Treasury Department just issued a report a couple of months ago that painted a very rosy picture -- headlined by the GM story. But when you read the full story and added up the numbers, it was clear that the paybacks were still projected to fall somewhere between $85B and $117B (think those were the figures) short of break even (and that was including the GM shenanigans). And that *didn't* include the open line of  credit Obama has extended to Fannie and Freddie for at least the next few years. They're still up to their necks in bad mortgages, so that deal isn't very likely to end too well (if it ends at all).

I was 'tongue-in-cheek' about the "Flat Tax"...I think it is the answer.

What reasoning facts the economy is better?...I'm on ground zero as far as auto sales go...things have not only stabilized?...they have got appreciably better.
Loans to GM?...Let me tell you Mister...GM is digging in itself out of the hole (I have business with a few Texas GM dealers...so this is NOT  tainted info)...GM is NOT going to close 900 dealers that they expected...DO YOU REALIZE WHAT THIS MEANS??...10,000 jobs will be saved, 10,000's of people will be effected...THAT is what I mean.

You can paint a bad illustration of the Fanny and Freddy loans too...You know what?...I say You are wrong, as Ive said to anyone who has challenged me on this.  Yup, we bought high (we had to to save the economy from free-fall), but we hold assets that will be recovered...perhaps at profit.

Now your little statistics have us only losing less than 100 billion dollars. What happened to this Doomsday "Trillion" numbers and such?

Keep in mind the assets in the companies "bailed-out"

I say it was the best INVESTMENT this Country has ever made!!!

[RIVERS]

You wouldn't need any extra accountants at all. In fact, you'd probably need fewer than the current 100,000 plus people employed by the IRS (that is, if this replaced the existing tax system completely and wasn't just an add-on to it, like the VAT tax that is being kicked around).


By what reasoning or facts  do you see the economy getting appreciably better? And how do you conclude the bailouts didn't cost anywhere near what was feared? GM's payback was a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. They used money from one loan to pay back another loan -- that's it. Did you really think that they some how managed to sell enough cars in the past -- what -- eight months to not only keep their operations going but also pay back an $8B loan with interest? Didn't happen.

As for the bailouts to the banks, a fairly high percentage of the banks that were given bailout money didn't need it in the first place. Paulson told them they were going to take it regardless and, those that could, paid the money back just as soon as TARP allowed them to do so. If you consider it a success to give money to a company that doesn't need it so it can pay you right back  in a few months, then I guess it was a "success."

Even so, the Treasury Department just issued a report a couple of months ago that painted a very rosy picture -- headlined by the GM story. But when you read the full story and added up the numbers, it was clear that the paybacks were still projected to fall somewhere between $85B and $117B (think those were the figures) short of break even (and that was including the GM shenanigans). And that *didn't* include the open line of  credit Obama has extended to Fannie and Freddie for at least the next few years. They're still up to their necks in bad mortgages, so that deal isn't very likely to end too well (if it ends at all).

Paulson didn't say "Take it regardless"...that is bogus.

Paulson said "Take it with stipulations"...yes the 'stips' were minimal...but were a lot better than the previous Administration imposed.

RE---How WE got to this bull shit in the first place.

[RIVERS]

Any questions?

[RIVERS]

If I wasn't contentious you wouldn't know it was me.

Build a wall, that's worked before.

Try the Russian approach, have nothing to offer them once they're inside.

Can you tell a Puerto Rican from an El Salvadorian?

We definitely shouldn't look at Europe and see what they're doing.  No, that would make too much sense.  Plus, it would mean we might have to admit that Europe does some things better than us.  That is ridiculous.....and out of the question.

We should listen to Steele, he knows how to talk the language of the poor people.

Maybe we should build a REALLY long moat.  Hey, a good portion of it would be alligator country.  Think about it.

Wait, I've got it!  Let's line the southern border with signs that read, "free entry after showering."  That would stop 86% of the Mexican influx.  (this one was just wrong)

To be more politically correct we could instead have arrows pointing south with the text, "free cologne."  (yeah, that's not much better)

Maybe we could trade Arkansas for Mexico.  Though in all fairness, Mexico has a city.  We might have to throw in Lexington, Kentucky to even it up.

Since we seem to honor borders established between 1776 and around 1850, should we be assisting in ejecting illegal Jewish aliens from Palestine?  Are they aliens or insurrectionists?  I get those concepts confused.

I'm going to ponder these things over a fine Brooklyn lager.  God bless the USA.

I like the 'Moat Idea'...we should  fill it with man-eating crocodiles (prop ably a myth)..then ring a security barrier with man-eating tigers and grizzly bears.

That might work.

We should also mount video cameras then have 'pay-per-view' illegals getting mauled by the tigers , bears, and crocks!!!!....I want to watch a Mexican get hurt.

I'd pay to watch an illegal die trying.

[RIVERS]

If I wasn't contentious you wouldn't know it was me.

Build a wall, that's worked before.

Try the Russian approach, have nothing to offer them once they're inside.

Can you tell a Puerto Rican from an El Salvadorian?

We definitely shouldn't look at Europe and see what they're doing.  No, that would make too much sense.  Plus, it would mean we might have to admit that Europe does some things better than us.  That is ridiculous.....and out of the question.

We should listen to Steele, he knows how to talk the language of the poor people.

Maybe we should build a REALLY long moat.  Hey, a good portion of it would be alligator country.  Think about it.

Wait, I've got it!  Let's line the southern border with signs that read, "free entry after showering."  That would stop 86% of the Mexican influx.  (this one was just wrong)

To be more politically correct we could instead have arrows pointing south with the text, "free cologne."  (yeah, that's not much better)

Maybe we could trade Arkansas for Mexico.  Though in all fairness, Mexico has a city.  We might have to throw in Lexington, Kentucky to even it up.

Since we seem to honor borders established between 1776 and around 1850, should we be assisting in ejecting illegal Jewish aliens from Palestine?  Are they aliens or insurrectionists?  I get those concepts confused.

I'm going to ponder these things over a fine Brooklyn lager.  God bless the USA.

You are warped and insane...South Dakota for Mexico maybe....not Arkansas...dumb-ass.

Paulson didn't say "Take it regardless"...that is bogus.

Paulson said "Take it with stipulations"...yes the 'stips' were minimal...but were a lot better than the previous Administration imposed.

RE---How WE got to this bull shit in the first place.

Paulson did call the CEOs of the top 10 or so banks to Washington and forced them all to take part of the TARP money whether or not they needed or wanted it. Both he and they have testified so. I think I'll take their word over yours. 

As for the "previous Administration," do you mean W's or Clinton's? Because, you are aware that Paulson was W's Secretary of the Treasury when TARP was passed, right? So, it'd help if you specified both which "previous Administration" and what stipulations that Administration imposed that you believe got us into this bull shit.

Fact is, it was the policies of low-interest loans with extremely lax credit requirements coupled with  removal of regulations that had separated investment banking from depository banking that led to the current economic problems. The low interest rates and lax credit requirements created a housing bubble (just look at how housing prices ballooned between the late 90's and 2007, far outstripping historic rates of appreciation) that burst when the default rates started rising beyond the capacity of the market to absorb them. We're still over-priced on average, so many are going to continue to see their homes depreciate for a while. It's not the kind of free-fall situation it was last year, but it's not really a growth cycle either.

[RIVERS]

Paulson did call the CEOs of the top 10 or so banks to Washington and forced them all to take part of the TARP money whether or not they needed or wanted it. Both he and they have testified so. I think I'll take their word over yours.  

As for the "previous Administration," do you mean W's or Clinton's? Because, you are aware that Paulson was W's Secretary of the Treasury when TARP was passed, right? So, it'd help if you specified both which "previous Administration" and what stipulations that Administration imposed that you believe got us into this bull shit.

Fact is, it was the policies of low-interest loans with extremely lax credit requirements coupled with  removal of regulations that had separated investment banking from depository banking that led to the current economic problems. The low interest rates and lax credit requirements created a housing bubble (just look at how housing prices ballooned between the late 90's and 2007, far outstripping historic rates of appreciation) that burst when the default rates started rising beyond the capacity of the market to absorb them. We're still over-priced on average, so many are going to continue to see their homes depreciate for a while. It's not the kind of free-fall situation it was last year, but it's not really a growth cycle either.

Yes, Paulson/Greenspan DID make them take part (regardless) because there were stipulations included with them accepting said funds. (You can take MY word for that.)

Fact is?..those stipulations were written into TARP after GWB left office, and Grietner/Bernankie was in charge. And Paulson was out.

No need to re-hash why the housing loan defaulted under the Bush presidency, I think we all 'GET-IT' (in the rear-end) by now. Bottom line is that it happened, and it happened while President Bush was in charge...and he had ample time to see the crisis YET WAS TOO STUPID TO SEE IT COMING.

Come-on please, I know some pretty 'average-minded' folks that made a lot of money because of the past Administrations stupidity.

You are right when you say it was deregulation and rule changes as to traditional 'Savings and Loans' (turning them into high-risk mortgage acceptance corps) was the problem.

It was the Bush administration and the Fed lead by Greenspan that made that all possible.

[Poe]

Yes, Paulson/Greenspan DID make them take part (regardless) because there were stipulations included with them accepting said funds. (You can take MY word for that.)

Fact is?..those stipulations were written into TARP after GWB left office, and Grietner/Bernankie was in charge. And Paulson was out.

No need to re-hash why the housing loan defaulted under the Bush presidency, I think we all 'GET-IT' (in the rear-end) by now. Bottom line is that it happened, and it happened while President Bush was in charge...and he had ample time to see the crisis YET WAS TOO STUPID TO SEE IT COMING.

Come-on please, I know some pretty 'average-minded' folks that made a lot of money because of the past Administrations stupidity.

You are right when you say it was deregulation and rule changes as to traditional 'Savings and Loans' (turning them into high-risk mortgage acceptance corps) was the problem.

It was the Bush administration and the Fed lead by Greenspan that made that all possible.

Ren,

I want to quickly point out that just because Rivers is walking into this trap doesn't mean the rest of us don't see where it's going.


Rivers,

This all happened under the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration.  In all fairness, how in the hell would the Bush administration have known what was coming?  You don't look at an airplane flying perfectly through the sky and start yelling that it's going to crash.  There was no warning things were going south until it was too late.


Ren again,

These were good policies, bipartisan policies that Bob Dole supported.  They were managed poorly.  It's not a bad idea to extend credit to more people, that fuels the economy.  It's a monumentally bad idea to go apeshit and give everyone with a pen a loan for half a million paying interest only for two years and telling them they can sell and finance 3/4 of a million in two years as interest only.  The only fault the Clinton administration should accept is not levying some serious regulations surrounding sub-prime mortgages and we all know where the opposition to regulations comes from, don't we?

[RIVERS]

Ren,

I want to quickly point out that just because Rivers is walking into this trap doesn't mean the rest of us don't see where it's going.


Rivers,

This all happened under the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration.  In all fairness, how in the hell would the Bush administration have known what was coming?  You don't look at an airplane flying perfectly through the sky and start yelling that it's going to crash.  There was no warning things were going south until it was too late.


Ren again,

These were good policies, bipartisan policies that Bob Dole supported.  They were managed poorly.  It's not a bad idea to extend credit to more people, that fuels the economy.  It's a monumentally bad idea to go apeshit and give everyone with a pen a loan for half a million paying interest only for two years and telling them they can sell and finance 3/4 of a million in two years as interest only.  The only fault the Clinton administration should accept is not levying some serious regulations surrounding sub-prime mortgages and we all know where the opposition to regulations comes from, don't we?

I'm not a dead-man -walking' as you say...You folks like to re-write history, and quote obscure bull shit.

The housing crisis and the related fall of the economy was George Bush's fault...there is no debate of smart money on that.

Insinuate that you know 'something different' all you like, or that you were smarter than history.....the facts are simple, the evidence will not lie.

[Poe]

Can't have this discussion without posting this.

[Poe]

I'm not a dead-man -walking' as you say...You folks like to re-write history, and quote obscure bull shit.

The housing crisis and the related fall of the economy was George Bush's fault...there is no debate of smart money on that.

Insinuate that you know 'something different' all you like, or that you were smarter than history.....the facts are simple, the evidence will not lie.

I'm not insinuating anything.  There is NO WAY the Bush administration could have seen it coming.  Watch the video above.  As silly as it is.....it's true.

[RIVERS]

I'm not insinuating anything.  There is NO WAY the Bush administration could have seen it coming.  Watch the video above.  As silly as it is.....it's true.

I don't have 8:39 seconds to devote to English gibberish.

No Way the Bush Administration saw it coming?...Hmmm, why is it that some folks made tons of money knowing it would happen?

Maybe the Bush administration didn't see it coming, but who ever said He was smart?.

Please, George Bush didn't see a lot of things coming...including some hijacked airplanes.

[Poe]

I don't have 8:39 seconds to devote to English gibberish.

No Way the Bush Administration saw it coming?...Hmmm, why is it that some folks made tons of money knowing it would happen?

Maybe the Bush administration didn't see it coming, but who ever said He was smart?.

Please, George Bush didn't see a lot of things coming...including some hijacked airplanes.

Exactly, there were other things going on at the time.  And seriously, do you think ANY president has that kind of intricate knowledge of the markets?  It would have been the job of his team to see it coming.  In this instance his personal intelligence would have nothing to do with it.

AND....it crashed practically overnight.  There is nothing that could have been done by the time anyone outside of the actual insiders knew anything was amiss.  It all looked very good.  Watch the video.  If they would have named the hedge funds things like 'the loans to unemployed Alabama black men in string vests' fund I doubt they would have gathered a lot of market interest.  But these 'structured investment vehicles' were named things like 'the high grade structured credit leverage fund' which made them look very appealing.  And why not?  They were gaining value at INCREDIBLE rates.  McMansions were gaining value at the rate of as much as 100k per year some years.

The 'insiders' that did see it coming and bailed out quickly are to blame.  But aren't we promoting, hell, even ASKING these people to do these very things by encouraging free markets?

"Keep on rockin' in the free world." - Neil Young

[RIVERS]

Exactly, there were other things going on at the time.  And seriously, do you think ANY president has that kind of intricate knowledge of the markets?  It would have been the job of his team to see it coming.  In this instance his personal intelligence would have nothing to do with it.

AND....it crashed practically overnight.  There is nothing that could have been done by the time anyone outside of the actual insiders knew anything was amiss.  It all looked very good.  Watch the video.  If they would have named the hedge funds things like 'the loans to unemployed Alabama black men in string vests' fund I doubt they would have gathered a lot of market interest.  But these 'structured investment vehicles' were named things like 'the high grade structured credit leverage fund' which made them look very appealing.  And why not?  They were gaining value at INCREDIBLE rates.  McMansions were gaining value at the rate of as much as 100k per year some years.

The 'insiders' that did see it coming and bailed out quickly are to blame.  But aren't we promoting, hell, even ASKING these people to do these very things by encouraging free markets?

"Keep on rockin' in the free world." - Neil Young

I don't really know how to reply...are you insinuating George Bush has any intellegence? intricate or otherwise?...'cause if your are?, I'll have to call you on that. 

[did]

Yes, Paulson/Greenspan DID make them take part (regardless) because there were stipulations included with them accepting said funds.

Greenspan wasn't around when TARP was passed; he hasn't been the Fed Chairman since...what...2004 or 2005? Paulson and Bernanke were the two Administration officials who met with the banks (although, technically, Bernanke's not really part of the Administration) .

You seem confused (or maybe just confusing) here. First you say there were no stipulations when the funds were initially passed out; now you say there were stipulations and that somehow those stipulations were what made the banks take the money??

The fact is, Paulson required the banks to take the money and that "offer" included stipulations from the beginning. Those included restrictions on executive compensation (albeit much less well-defined than the later changes made by the Obama Administration; Paulson was acting under the gun, so little wonder he was a little short on specifics), a prohibition on golden parachutes for senior executives, clawback provisions for bonuses paid to executives that were based on faulty earnings statements, etc. and an agreement not to deduct bonuses/salaries in excess of $500K per executive.

 

(You can take MY word for that.)

Uh...no, I really can't. 

Fact is?..those stipulations were written into TARP after GWB left office, and Grietner/Bernankie was in charge. And Paulson was out.

Wrong. See above. Yes, additional changes were made after the initial distribution of funds. For that matter, the purpose for which those funds were used also changed.
 Some of those changes were initiated while Bush was still in office; others after. But, I don't see what that has to do with the question of whether the government forced the banks to take the money regardless of the banks' needs or wishes.

No need to re-hash why the housing loan defaulted under the Bush presidency, I think we all 'GET-IT' (in the rear-end) by now. Bottom line is that it happened, and it happened while President Bush was in charge...and he had ample time to see the crisis YET WAS TOO STUPID TO SEE IT COMING.

First of all, are you familiar with the concept of a time bomb? Because, essentially, that's what was planted into the mortgage (and, by extension) the investment banking systems -- beginning in the 1970's but really in the late '90's. The fact this time bomb exploded on Bush's watch doesn't reallly make it his fault , now does it?

Second, for all his many faults, Bush did, in fact, see signs of this bubble bursting. As early as 2004, he was warning about impending doom wth Fannie and Freddie and was urging Congress to do something to avert a disaster. People like Barnie Frank, Chris Dodd and the Republican majority ignored his warnings and some (Frank, in particular) even went so far as to proclaim predictions of such a disaster essentially nonsense -- saying Freddie and Fannie were in absolutely no danger.

Come-on please, I know some pretty 'average-minded' folks that made a lot of money because of the past Administrations stupidity.

Good for them. What does that have to do with anything?

You are right when you say it was deregulation and rule changes as to traditional 'Savings and Loans' (turning them into high-risk mortgage acceptance corps) was the problem.

Traditional Savings and Loans went out the window in the '80s...they weren't around for this debacle.

It was the Bush administration and the Fed lead by Greenspan that made that all possible.

Again, the seeds for the current crisis were planted before W took office. The Greenspan easy money policy was a contributing factor for sure. Then, again, the tight money policy he pursued in the early '90's -- out of an overwrought fear of inflation -- contributed to the '91-'92 recession. But, he also presided as Fed Chairman during the remainder of the '90's as well. So, for his part in all of those situations, I guess you could say he had mixed results.