Can you spell?

[Darren Dirt]

Darren Dirt Wrote:I wonder what Ms. Bianchi and Mr. Mann would have to say now, after all that has happened a short 7 months later...

or Ron Paul, for that matter.


Marcy Kaptur, Ohio "rep" (D) (of course), sez "they want mama to make it all better!" well put...
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbD62gNi9WE">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbD62gNi9WE</a><!-- m -->

Quote:Republicans PRIVATIZE profits and SOCIALIZE losses. Amazing what HUGE fans of socialism these Republicans become when they need Mama to make it all better.

- YT comment




but, fear not, there's a simple solution offered by Treasury and Fed goons:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akZVTnBs66uY">http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... ZVTnBs66uY</a><!-- m -->

Quote:...proposed moving troubled assets from the balance sheets of American financial companies into a new institution...

in other words, "move troubling numbers from one column to a NEW column!" 

[Darren Dirt]

bailout: "no", $700B without accountability: "yes, please?"*
... the nerve of some terrorcrats...

looks like we keep creating new threads on this subject, howzabout [librarian hat on]we all just keep posting news articles, our thoughts, our anger, etc. in this one thread???[/hat off]



...other threads for your reference:
- Sept. 6, 2008 show - Joe Thomas again! (The Big One)

- "A trillion here, a trillion there... pretty soon..."

- The Motherof all frauds....meet your new king, Hank Paulson!

- coming to an inbox near you... ;D

- and of course, THIS CURRENT thread (originally titled "Can you spell?", but if you reply to THIS post then future posts will be automagically changed )


PS: I don't mean to single you out, eye 2ithreadstarter2hear




*yes, folks, even my anarchy-doubting socialism-accepting gamer friends are talking 'bout it...

Thorin Wrote:So I watched Jon Stewart and Colbert Report last night, and they had a field day with the proposed seven hundred billion dollar bailout.  So here's some funny (or sad, depending on how you view it) items:

Prior to September 15th the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury of the United States, Henry Paulson, boldly proclaimed that there would be no bailout!  (detailed here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTM0YWI2NWJhM2YzOTAzZmJhM2YzNjllNjY3MTg0OTU=">http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MT ... Y3MTg0OTU=</a><!-- m -->)

A scant few days later, Henry Paulson convinced the President of the United States, George W. Bush, to try to push a bill through Congress within the week that included giving Paulson the power to spend seven hundred billion dollars at will and Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency. (detailed here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/20/treasurys-financial-bailout-proposal-to-congress/">http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/ ... -congress/</a><!-- m -->)

So...  He doesn't want to do a bailout, but he wants to be able to spend $700B without accountability?  I'll bet this guy used to be a CEO of a bank.  Oh yeah, yeah, here it is: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson#Career_highlights.&nbsp;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paul ... hts.&nbsp;</a><!-- m --> Turns out he was CEO of Goldman Sachs, one of the companies that would be (immensely) helped by the bailout!

Jon Oliver had a hilarious spot on The Daily Show, talking about Bush (starting at about 6:48 in this clip: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/september-23-2008/#clip95448">http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-da ... #clip95448</a><!-- m -->)

John Oliver: "Look, we all know he'll never be ranked as the best president, but he could still, if he works hard enough..."
Jon Stewart: "Be the worst?"
John Oliver: "...the last."

As an aside, Jon Stewart had Bill Clinton on as a guest, and Clinton is an eloquent speaker and clearly intelligent.  As compared to Bush, who seems to struggle with his words and thoughts more and more these days.

So now Obama and McCain are squaring off.  McCain is painted with the Republican brush and a lot of people think that the Republicans are fleecing the public to pay their cronies, what with their idea to take taxpayers' money to help out rich CEOs.  Meanwhile, Obama's being painted in a much better light, as he has been pushing the idea of using taxpayers' money to help poor and middle-income people retain the properties they shouldn't have been approved to buy.  Either way there's hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars being spent by the government, but Obama's idea connects better with the typical American.  We might just see the first black man in office.

Thorin Wrote:So what do you think of the suggested act that places Paulson's decisions on how to spend that money above the law?  The suggested act specifically states "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

That's the part that really gets me, and that is cheesing off a lot of Americans.  I wonder if even Bill O'Reilly thinks it's a bad idea?

[Darren Dirt]

Robert Shiller's Seven Easy Chapters to Solving The Crisis (?)

"The Subprime Solution: How Today's Global Financial Crisis Happened, and What to Do about It"

...or maybe this book is just a first-to-the-marketplace "I warned you guys..." book?


One apparently knowledgeable reviewer seems to give it the "thumbs down", essentially "okay on the diagnosis part, terrible on the solutions part"

Quote:When Shiller comes up with recommendations he is not convincing. In the short-term he simply suggests we bail out everybody by reviving the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) first established in 1933 but no longer in existence. The former HOLC accepted mortgages as collateral for loans to mortgage lenders so long as the mortgages had more lenient terms than the market. This recommendation has several flaws to it. First, it runs into moral hazard. It would bail out with taxpayer's money homeowners who never had the financial resources to buy a house and condo flippers who speculated with other people's money. Second, a good deal of those mortgages has been securitized into complex collaterized bond structures with many tranches sold to international investors. Those mortgages administered by bond trusts are not pledgeable to an HOLC organization.

Shiller's long term recommendations are ineffective.

...and so the Expert Opinion Circus continues... And the MSM continues to give Ron Paul* and others a quiet nod of acknowledgement, then back to the "Save Us Oh Great Nanny State!" ruminating and pontificating that just makes things worse...


So, AiLL'ers, how's your "job" stability?  :wishmeluck:




*good "special to CNN" article by Dr. Paul, but the comments are the best (most encouraging) thing about it! For example

Quote:by "Matt in MS":
We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself."
-2008 GOP Platform

'nuff said



Also, by "Jefferson":

Quote:This is the single best piece of analysis I've read of the current situation published in the mainstream media.

What alarms me the most is that the level of economic ignorance among policy makers is truly astounding. It is trite to recall Santayana's oft-quoted words that those who fail to learn from history are predisposed to repeating it, including its mistakes.

Yet, few policy makers have the mental framework to grasp economic fundamentals: ignoring the past now occurs because few have the ability to learn from its mistakes. In a twisted way, it's fun to watch policy makers trying to discuss mortgage-backed securities or collateralized debt obligations, because most of them have absolutely no clue what the heck they're talking about.

It's also sad that the economics profession has gotten this low: The dominant economic theories today are akin in sophistication and correctness to a medieval mystic's view of the universe. Implementing policies guided by those principles is like planning a Moon voyage with a belief that the Earth is flat, or like trying cure cancer with leeches.

I have a really difficult time believing that people just don't know any better, and don't realize that this sort of "bail out" is now bringing us closer to the type of economy German and Italy had - in the 1930s.

I also don't understand how people can watch their currency (the medium most people in this country hold their savings in) being completely destroyed in front of their eyes, only to benefit politicians seeking re-election and Wall Street fat cats.

Where are the pitch-forks?

[NonEntity]

F.A.S.C.I.S.M.




he notes with great subtlety...

Dis ain't no collapse.  Dis here is a consolidation of power, dude.

[Lummox3]

Can't it be both?

[eye2i2hear]

Lummox3 Wrote:Can't it be both?

NonE, you wanna show him the door, or do you want me to?

NonE Wrote:We don't like yore kind 'round here.

---NonAK(47)  (assault rifle defense rifle)

[Darren Dirt]

Quote:Re: Can you spell?

(sigh)

[NonEntity]

Darren Dirt Wrote:

Quote:Re: Can you spell?

(sigh)

Sorry if you took me seriously, Darren the Libraren.   I actually appreciated what you were attempting to do, it was just that, as whatzisname Skip Wilson used to say, "The DEVIL made me do it!"

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

NonEntity Wrote:Re: Economic Collapse '08 (central thread)

hooray!    Heck, folks, if NonE can do it then anyone can do it!

...but if this "new thread for every new opinion" thing keeps happening, well...

[eye2i2hear]

I vouch that he can spell F.A.S.C.I.S.M.  (and he can enlarge it, color it, and move it, too!  woo-woo!)



So, NonE, do we take aim at The Dirt (sigh'in) kind 'round here as well??  friggin' foreigners...





[and in the doG but am I gettin' old when I'm correcting an old fart, but make that: "Flip" Wilson, not "Skip"-- geesh, Geraldene]  >

[NonEntity]

eye2i2hear Wrote:[and in the doG but am I gettin' old when I'm correcting an old fart, but make that: "Flip" Wilson, not "Skip"-- geesh, Geraldene]  >

I thought that looked a bit funny.  Oh well, I'm only perfect.

- NonE :rolleyes2:


P.S.  Pretty impressive how juvenile I could make that post look, wasn't it.  Huh, wasn't it???

[Darren Dirt]

Darren Dirt Wrote:

NonEntity Wrote:Re: Economic Collapse '08 (central thread)

hooray!    Heck, folks, if NonE can do it then anyone can do it!

...but if this "new thread for every new opinion" thing keeps happening, well...

Vin Suprynowicz on the banking "bailout"
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/29857079.html">http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/29857079.html</a><!-- m -->

...and on "regulation" in general:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/28908324.html">http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/28908324.html</a><!-- m -->

NAILED IT!


I'm suddenly thirsty... too bad the bold, entrepeneurial spirit is nearly dead in the new "Generation Whine" -- now it's "submit and pay the 'debts' of lazy/idiot folks who had no foresight"

[eye2i2hear]

Darren Dirt Wrote:I'm suddenly thirsty... too bad the bold, entrepeneurial spirit is nearly dead in the new "Generation Whine" -- now it's "submit and pay the 'debts' of lazy/idiot folks who had no foresight"

Me wonders out loud typed if this isn't evidence of the still lingering problem?  aka "group think"?  akin to Nations think?  illusional and foggy grouping habits?
There ARE no "generations" are there??  Or is a "generation" all those who just graduated high school?  No wait, make that graduated college?  But wait, are those the same "generation"?  So make that all who are born but not legal age?  No, wait, make that all of those who are legal age but not at retirement age? (what is "retirement age"?)  Why does one year's age difference distinguish "generations"?  Two years?  X number of years?
What I'm after is, that apart from individual families, the concept of "a generation" doing X (Y, Z, or Babyboomer) is a blur and illusion.  A mental distraction?  Another shift at "somebody (else) ought to/will have to do/not do something about X, Y, or Z" (or takes the blame).  Akin to The Government ought to do/not do something...
"Submit and pay" surely is not a latest "generational" matter is it?  How would one measure that? [I'm reminded here of the "generation" of 1776, where it's said that something like less than 30% (some say a little as 7% when it boiled down to war) of Americans supported separating from The United Kingdom; granted, the taxation of TUK for all "generations" at the time was significantly less than the present TUS-- unless we count the slave "generations" and consider the balance of the "generational" scale?  But who's to say it's "the generation" that such is dependent upon?]
There are only individuals doing and not doing, doing or not doing.  Here's to speaking more in accord with practical reality?!
And Darren I hold you to taking me to task when my speaking reveals similar zombie delusional habits-- assuming my case presented here is valid.

[NonEntity]

eye2i2hear Wrote:Me wonders out loud typed if this isn't evidence of the still lingering problem?  aka "group think"?  akin to Nations think?  illusional and foggy grouping habits?
There ARE no "generations" are there??

2i2, methinks you throwest the bambino out with the water for bathing.

I do think that you would find that any person from the 13th century would have many more characteristics in common with another person from that century than with any person from this century.    Would you agree?   If so, then you are confusing "certainty" with "tendency."   See Conrad for even greater confusion on this topic.

- NonE

addendum:  And I must say that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  On one hand you proclaim that one can know the "truth" while on the other hand you proclaim that it is not possible to grasp certain tendencies among certain groups of people.    Ya cain't have it both ways, dude.

[eye2i2hear]

NonEntity Wrote:2i2, methinks you throwest the bambino out with the water for bathing.

Perhaps.
or:  methinks you throwest the context out with the water for bathing.

Quote:addendum:  And I must say that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  On one hand you proclaim that one can know the "truth" while on the other hand you proclaim that it is not possible to grasp certain tendencies among certain groups of people.    Ya cain't have it both ways, dude.

Hmpf.  [said proudly by MiniNonMe]
Sayeth all thouest might, with all thouest might.  Thouest speaketh of course fromst thouest own daffynitioning.
methinks your 13th-to-21st century analogy is in needeth of some tossing with the bath water...
Generations, in the context of how D`man used it (noting my acceptance of it as valid within individual families made in my original post), is but a concept-- which is fine so long as its not taken as an empirically founded one.  At best-- again contextually --it is a generalization.  Within individual biological families, it is a factual matter, thus it is truth.  Me thinketh Sir NonE, thouest is demanding that thouest definition of The Truth (as NonTruth) is The One True one??  [after all, it is not acceptable to speak of The State of Arizona, no?  Imagine that, The State of Arizona is both true and false?!  So is that truth or not truth?  fact or concept?  or closer to point, factual distinguished from conceptual?]