• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More Job Seekers Give Up

OpportunityCost said:
FYI Cain doesnt have policy until hes in charge, its ALL talking points until they are in charge of something.
Click to expand...

Since you want to play the semantic game, Cain's solutions are talking points without substance because he doesn't out line any of the HOWs, just like Palin. The only person I know on the repub side who outlines any HOWs is Ron Paul.
 
xpiher said:
Contraction always happens after recession
Click to expand...

Nearly two years after the economic recovery officially began, job creation continues to stagger at the slowest post-recession rate since the Great Depression.

The nation has 5% fewer jobs today — a loss of 7 million — than it did when the recession began in December 2007. That is by far the worst performance of job generation following any of the dozen recessions since the 1930s.
Click to expand...

Job creation limps along after recession - USATODAY.com
 
xpiher said:
Cain's solutions are talking points without substance because he doesn't out line any of the HOWs, just like Palin.
Click to expand...

LOL!

it's been two years since the united states senate even proposed a budget

and kent conrad's not gonna deliver this year either

the closest the party came was obama's 2012 blueprint published in february which actually RAISES deficit spending an obscene twenty percent

that completely outta touch itinerary, however, was defeated on upper parliament's expensive blue carpet, NINETY SEVEN to ZERO, two weeks ago

Dems lack budget leadership

President's budget sinks, 97-0 - TheHill.com
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I just wish those lazy people would get off their buts and take the jobs I am told are out their if the look for them, rather then have people blame the government for not providing them jobs
Click to expand...

Who should we blame for taking their jobs?

If the Government failed to regulate banking, trading, credit default swaps, exotic derivatives... which resulted in a massive recession... Aren't we accountable for all the decisions we made? We elected a President who lowered taxes and interest rates which resulted in the real estate bubble, then took us into two unfunded wars.

Yeah, after 8 years of the worst President in modern history, there is a big mess to clean up. The jokers on Fox News have got their viewers convinced that you can undo 8 years of bad policy in under 3 years. What a load of crap?

The problem with this high-speed-internet-microwave-meals society is everyone wants things NOW. So they go and elect a bunch of Tea Partiers to state houses and the HoR. Next thing you know, the newbies are laying off the public sector.

So, yes, thanks to the Tea Partiers and GOPs that were going to fix everything... Unemployment has gone up. At least we can give more tax breaks to the companies that aren't hiring.:roll::roll:
 
The Prof said:
LOL!

it's been two years since the united states senate even proposed a budget

and kent conrad's not gonna deliver this year either

the closest the party came was obama's 2012 blueprint published in february which actually RAISES deficit spending an obscene twenty percent

that completely outta touch itinerary, however, was defeated on upper parliament's expensive blue carpet, NINETY SEVEN to ZERO, two weeks ago

Dems lack budget leadership

President's budget sinks, 97-0 - TheHill.com
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the fact that Cain doesn't outline his HOWs? Like I said, the only repub presidential candidate I've seen HOWs from is Ron Paul.
 
Mortgage dreivatives, credit default swaps are products of the Credit Reinvestment Act that made giving out money to the wrong risks mandatory through making those kinds of loans contingent to the banks rating.

The government regulated making bad loans, laundered them through Fannie May and Freddie Mac and then the finance market made a product that was risky at best. Yet, somehow....its entirely the fault of the financial and banking industry? Wake up, the financial bankruptcy protection was more or less a cover for Washington. When you tell banks no capital loans from the Fed, no aquisitions, no mergers unless your CRA rating is a certain amount; they will make bad loans as a percentage and write them off. The banks that went skyrocketing in value and tumbled the hardest didnt have the solvency to cover the loan amounts they were making, and they did it with goverment approval because of who the loans went to.

Social engineering at best, a crapstorm waiting to happen at worst, a financial mess at present.
 
xpiher said:
What does this have to do with the fact that Cain doesn't outline his HOWs?
Click to expand...

ask the president of the united states, his budget director, the majority leader of the senate, the budget chair, the finance chair...

unless you'd prefer to consult some pizza guy
 
OpportunityCost said:
Mortgage dreivatives, credit default swaps are products of the Credit Reinvestment Act that made giving out money to the wrong risks mandatory through making those kinds of loans contingent to the banks rating.
Click to expand...

Credit default swaps are financial products used to hedge against the risk of... default on a debt. They are not strictly products of the CRA, and have been used for the purposes of risk management for some time (since 1990).

The government regulated making bad loans, laundered them through Fannie May and Freddie Mac and then the finance market made a product that was risky at best.
Click to expand...

Total bull****! As evident in the current lack of depository lending, nobody can force banks to lend if they do not want to.

Yet, somehow....its entirely the fault of the financial and banking industry?
Click to expand...

Yep! Nobody forced AIG to take on counter-party risk for nearly every major financial institution in the developed world. Your argument is truly a fairy tale.

Wake up, the financial bankruptcy protection was more or less a cover for Washington. When you tell banks no capital loans from the Fed, no aquisitions, no mergers unless your CRA rating is a certain amount; they will make bad loans as a percentage and write them off. The banks that went skyrocketing in value and tumbled the hardest didnt have the solvency to cover the loan amounts they were making, and they did it with goverment approval because of who the loans went to.

Social engineering at best, a crapstorm waiting to happen at worst, a financial mess at present.
Click to expand...

You can take such nonsense to the conspiracy theory forum.
 
 
Last edited:
OpportunityCost said:
Mortgage dreivatives, credit default swaps are products of the Credit Reinvestment Act that made giving out money to the wrong risks mandatory through making those kinds of loans contingent to the banks rating.
Click to expand...

Come again? Mortgage derivatives and CDS are not products of the CRA and existed in some forms before its legislation. Furthermore, CDS are often issued entirely outside of the banking system. Furthermore, the majority of bad mortgages were made by banks not covered by the CRA. Wherever you get your information from, it's entirely wrong. Furthermore, bank ratings are not issued by the government nor does the government pay the rating agencies.

The government regulated making bad loans, laundered them through Fannie May and Freddie Mac
Click to expand...

The majority of Fannie and Freddie purchases were high quality mortgages. The issue now is that the massive recession made formerly good mortgages bad. Foreclosures on nearby homes who's mortgages were not bought by Fannie/Freddie would cause the good mortgages home value to decline. Coupled with job loss by the mortgage payer and a good loan goes bad. Note that NOTHING about the original loan was bad.

and then the finance market made a product that was risky at best.
Click to expand...

Come again? CDS only become problems when the issuer does not have the capital should the CDS be called in. AIG issued several hundred billion in CDS potential liability then it had in assets. The problem is not the CDS. It's the capital of the issuer. I think you should at least get a cursory understanding of the topics you write about before writing about them.

Yet, somehow....its entirely the fault of the financial and banking industry?
Click to expand...

How is it not AIG's fault that it issued CDS with aggregate total liability far in excess of its capacity to meet even a fraction of its liabilities with its available capital?
CDS is fundamentally insurance. If the insurance issuer does not have the capital to meet liabilities, that is its fault. Furthermore, the increase demand for securitized mortgages caused many NON-CRA banks to issue, chop up and sell mortgages. And you are ENTIRELY leaving out how Moody's basically committed one of the largest acts of fraud in history by rating securities it knew were total crap as investment grade.

Wake up, the financial bankruptcy protection was more or less a cover for Washington. When you tell banks no capital loans from the Fed, no aquisitions, no mergers unless your CRA rating is a certain amount; they will make bad loans as a percentage and write them off. The banks that went skyrocketing in value and tumbled the hardest didnt have the solvency to cover the loan amounts they were making, and they did it with goverment approval because of who the loans went to.
Click to expand...

It helps to understand what you talk about before posting. Or you end up looking foolish. Like you do now
 
The Prof said:
yesterday:
Click to expand...

Look at its holdings of bonds. Considering the decline in the dollar and the jonesy-ness of the Chinese manager, they could make a heck of a lot more in short term European holdings at the same time as slowing inflation in China. Greece hit a yield of 12% a few months back. China changing its T-bills doesn't really mean anything.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
Actually both parties need to be blamed, the Democrats moreso, but also the Republicans.

We failed to lead with conservative policies when we had control and now we are paying, the Democrats just made it a lot worse.
Click to expand...

Actually it was a Republican Congress who got rid of the Glass-Steagle act. Not to mention systematically gutting obstacles to home ownership under Bush. While Clinton did gut the SEC, Bush pushed them towards making US business more competitive thereby dramatically reducing enforcement. If you believe self regulation works, tell me how that worked out with Madoff.
 
and you think that regulation by agency capture is better?


ponzi schemes aren't an argument for or against the glass-steagle act. you know better.
 
doesn't mean anything---LOL!

. To the degree that the $1.7 trillion in short-term U.S. Treasury bills extant as of March must be converted into longer-term U.S. Treasury securities, the U.S. government will be forced to pay a higher annual interest rate on the national debt.
Click to expand...

link above
 
The American workforce is in transition. Big Business and even Big Government now employ qualified part-time workers. It is an employers market in the U.S.

Recently IKEA opened a new manufacturing center in Virginia (if memory serves me). My initial thought was that IKEA wanted a manufacturing facility closer to the American market. Yeah, well partly. As it works out the American IKEA workers are paid LESS than their European counterparts. They work more hours and have less leave time. In addition, a significant number of the IKEA manufacturing workers are PART TIME, limited or no benefits.

Fortunately my wife and I are fully employed, with full benefits. More and more of our friends - degreed professionals with years of experience - who are fortunate enough to re-enter the workforce are way, way underemployed and often as not are accepting part-time positions. Their employers are increasing profits by screwing employees.

There is certainly something wrong with the picture. If the Teabaggers and Republicans or even Democrats know of a better way it would behoove the respective party affiliated to step up and make a difference for America NOW. Let's forget parties for a second (and by the way I can't stand any of the current corporate backed parties or their turdy lap puppet "politicians") and think about the People. If there is a better way then now is the time to step up and show it. Here's an effing clue giving corporations free rein to f*ck over Americans is NOT the answer. American workers have sacrificed, American workers and want to be workers ARE sacrificing now. It's passed bloody time for corporate America and their Congressional whores to get real and step up. I don't know what the solution is but I damn well know what it is not. It is not off shore bloody feckin accounts and corporate welfare and corporate tax avoidance, sending work off shore and massive corporate profits. Not now. No damned way!

If ANY goddamned party has an answer far too many good American people cannot wait until 2012 to have an answer. Platitudes won't get it. Creditors don't understand platitudes.
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
Do you read a persons response, and then post the first red herring that comes to mind? The stimulus did what it was intended to do given the size and trajectory of the spending. You know what's rich? People posting in topics that center on economics without the ability to keep up with the conversation.
Click to expand...

No it did not do waht it was intended to do. Acording to Obama it was suppose to make it to where unemployment would not go over 8%. It failed...miserably.
 
obvious Child said:
Come again? Mortgage derivatives and CDS are not products of the CRA and existed in some forms before its legislation. Furthermore, CDS are often issued entirely outside of the banking system. Furthermore, the majority of bad mortgages were made by banks not covered by the CRA. Wherever you get your information from, it's entirely wrong. Furthermore, bank ratings are not issued by the government nor does the government pay the rating agencies.



The majority of Fannie and Freddie purchases were high quality mortgages. The issue now is that the massive recession made formerly good mortgages bad. Foreclosures on nearby homes who's mortgages were not bought by Fannie/Freddie would cause the good mortgages home value to decline. Coupled with job loss by the mortgage payer and a good loan goes bad. Note that NOTHING about the original loan was bad.



Come again? CDS only become problems when the issuer does not have the capital should the CDS be called in. AIG issued several hundred billion in CDS potential liability then it had in assets. The problem is not the CDS. It's the capital of the issuer. I think you should at least get a cursory understanding of the topics you write about before writing about them.



How is it not AIG's fault that it issued CDS with aggregate total liability far in excess of its capacity to meet even a fraction of its liabilities with its available capital?
CDS is fundamentally insurance. If the insurance issuer does not have the capital to meet liabilities, that is its fault. Furthermore, the increase demand for securitized mortgages caused many NON-CRA banks to issue, chop up and sell mortgages. And you are ENTIRELY leaving out how Moody's basically committed one of the largest acts of fraud in history by rating securities it knew were total crap as investment grade.



It helps to understand what you talk about before posting. Or you end up looking foolish. Like you do now
Click to expand...

Default swaps and mortgage derivatives as a percentage of trading skyrocketed and became a problem AFTER the CRA sponsored legislation and debt engineering. Saying when they started is a good talking point but knowing when they became a large enough portion of the market is whats important, not when they started. They became big business AFTER CRA.

You are not a lender. All loans carry a risk assessment. An assessment that near disappears when backed by Fannie May and Freddie Mac because as GSAs it was always assured that the loans were government backed---directly or indirectly. A lender knows damn good and well what the default chances are on a loan when they write it, the kicker is whether it is backed by another entity or not. With FM backing they had never had the gigantic default issues they are experiencing now.

AIG certainly is at fault, the government is also at fault not just for regulating a structure to make those types of transactions legal but through administration process making them preferrable to a certain extent if it was covering mortgage derivatives and FM backed debt. AIG never expected nominally backed mortgages to collapse in the way they did.

LOL of course they did...a mortgage derivative is what someone says a group of bundled mortgages is supposedly worth, how in the name of god can you assume it going to be worth anything without individual risk assessment? You cannot but it didnt matter because the government had its paws all over the mortgage market with CRA guidelines ensuring that the loans were made and had to written off someway, somehow. Its easy to see now it was a terrible practice, but at that point it was all the rage to push home ownership for votes---on both sides of the aisle.

You seem to want to push all the blame for this onto the companies. Well I dont agree with that as I know the corporate cronyism was alive and well---the influx into the housing market walked hand in hand with government legislation pushing risky loans and when you run anything by positive feedback eventually it goes out of control.

Both the government and the companies engaged in political and economic greed and they covered each others asses. Neither side paid the amount they should have---the banks should have been allowed to fail and the government should have been routed far harder in 2008 and 2010 to try new approaches---the old ones arent working.
 
Risky Thicket said:
The American workforce is in transition. Big Business and even Big Government now employ qualified part-time workers. It is an employers market in the U.S.

Recently IKEA opened a new manufacturing center in Virginia (if memory serves me). My initial thought was that IKEA wanted a manufacturing facility closer to the American market. Yeah, well partly. As it works out the American IKEA workers are paid LESS than their European counterparts. They work more hours and have less leave time. In addition, a significant number of the IKEA manufacturing workers are PART TIME, limited or no benefits.

Fortunately my wife and I are fully employed, with full benefits. More and more of our friends - degreed professionals with years of experience - who are fortunate enough to re-enter the workforce are way, way underemployed and often as not are accepting part-time positions. Their employers are increasing profits by screwing employees.

There is certainly something wrong with the picture. If the Teabaggers and Republicans or even Democrats know of a better way it would behoove the respective party affiliated to step up and make a difference for America NOW. Let's forget parties for a second (and by the way I can't stand any of the current corporate backed parties or their turdy lap puppet "politicians") and think about the People. If there is a better way then now is the time to step up and show it. Here's an effing clue giving corporations free rein to f*ck over Americans is NOT the answer. American workers have sacrificed, American workers and want to be workers ARE sacrificing now. It's passed bloody time for corporate America and their Congressional whores to get real and step up. I don't know what the solution is but I damn well know what it is not. It is not off shore bloody feckin accounts and corporate welfare and corporate tax avoidance, sending work off shore and massive corporate profits. Not now. No damned way!

If ANY goddamned party has an answer far too many good American people cannot wait until 2012 to have an answer. Platitudes won't get it. Creditors don't understand platitudes.
Click to expand...

Here is a clue. Stop bashing the corporations you want to hire folks and find collaborative ways for them to hire here. Does it sound as stupid to anyone else that we scream and curse at corporate heads and then wonder why they want to locate elsewhere?
 
xpiher said:
1) Drilling moratorium ended
Click to expand...

And, still no permits being issued.

2) There are more wells leased today than there were under the last president. Most of them aren't being tapped. I wonder why
Click to expand...

Because no permits are being issued.

3) Contraction always happens after recession
Click to expand...

Whatever new talking point that is.
4) Not all jobs are energy related
Click to expand...

True, but alot of jobs are and how much sense does it make to kill jobs, when we need every job we can get?
5) Productivity has increased since the recession
Click to expand...

But, drilling hasn't. Drilling is the segment of the industry that creates most of the jobs. You know the difference between drilling, exploration and production, right?

6) Companies have consolidated/merged since the recession, ending more jobs.
Click to expand...

Now, that's a crock. Nice try, though.
 
xpiher said:
Since you want to play the semantic game, Cain's solutions are talking points without substance because he doesn't out line any of the HOWs, just like Palin. The only person I know on the repub side who outlines any HOWs is Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

But, his policies suck ass.
 
obvious Child said:
Which implies that the conditions that caused it were caused by Democrats. Which would be extremely ignorant of history almost as a whole.
Click to expand...

Not really, but I know how you are. So, I'll consider the source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom