Page 105 of 194 FirstFirst ... 55595103104105106107115155 ... LastLast
Results 1,041 to 1,050 of 1936

Thread: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

  1. #1041
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael H View Post
    You still haven't admitted there was a bailout by the FED of any amount!!! You fight for honesty whats your response?

    Get off the ropes and stop playing rope a dope!
    Who cares, i never stated there were never any bailouts dude, so quit trying to side step the entire point of this discussion. You made an error by stating $16 trillion in secret loans which of course were in no way secret.

    AIG got bailed out
    BOA got bailed out
    Fannie May got bailed out
    Freddie Mac got bailed out
    GM and Chrysler got bailed out
    C got bailed out

    However, the Feds various credit facilities are not, and were never intended to be used to "bail out" anything. they are there simply to provide liquidity and credit during times of need for member banks; when credit markets fail to function in an appropriate manner.

    So get over it. You lost, you were wrong, and you definitely have no business in these discussions because you lack the knowledge base and familiarity with the industry to keep up with those that do.
    Last edited by Kushinator; 09-07-11 at 11:24 PM.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  2. #1042
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    09-25-11 @ 12:44 PM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    157

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Who cares, i never stated there were never any bailouts dude, so quit trying to side step the entire point of this discussion. You made an error by stating $16 trillion in secret loans which of course were in no way secret.

    AIG got bailed out
    BOA got bailed out
    Fannie May got bailed out
    Freddie Mac got bailed out
    GM and Chrysler got bailed out
    C got bailed out

    However, the Feds various credit facilities are not, and were never intended to be used to "bail out" anything. they are there simply to provide liquidity and credit during times of need for member banks; when credit markets fail to function in an appropriate manner.

    So get over it. You lost, you were wrong, and you definitely have no business in these discussions because you lack the knowledge base and familiarity with the industry to keep up with those that do.
    Post# 670 A loan is not a bailout.

    As you recall I stated the FED bailed out the gamblers, I wasn't about TARP. Was it 16 trillion in loans ... definitely yes. Were the PDCF loans long term credit ... no, were the PDCF loans used long term ... YES.

    Did I state by the way ... the FED bailed out gamblers with 16 trillion in secret long term loans or did I state the FED bailed out gamblers with 16 trillion secret loans? I don't consider the TAF loans very long term. The term was long enough to turn the gamblers fortunes around ... long enough, which in the end was the whole point of the FED bailing them out.

    Did you think the FED tried to avoid and discourage the investigation so the public would lose faith ... was because all was rosy at the farm? Did they want people to know about the shady practices and junk backing loans?

    So you think by stating the "company" mission policy of the FED ... you change what actually happened? Is that "honest"?

    Read your post again and tell me anything you stated ... anything which supports the debate I was wrong!

    That reply was empty ... and you finish with an insult. A no substance post declaring victory. Right wingers like you always pull that crap.
    Last edited by Michael H; 09-08-11 at 12:05 AM.
    If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. Patton
    New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common. John Locke

  3. #1043
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    09-25-11 @ 12:44 PM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    157

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    I've presented evidence of a bailout by the FED. Evidence of 16 Trillion in loans. Goldenboy you have not presented 1 shred of evidence to the contrary.

    Nyah, Nyah, I win the debate and I'm smarter then you, and you have no knowledge of the industry ... is not evidence. As you purport to support honest debate and you will swoop in to challenge dishonesty, its disappointing to see you not present evidence to support your contentions.

    I win is not evidence of supporting your debate.
    If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. Patton
    New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common. John Locke

  4. #1044
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post

    Okay now that you are getting somewhat reasonable, I don't blame Clinton for the attack .... and I didn't blame him for the first. I don't blame Bush for the attack either. When people are willing to jump into the seat of an air line and crash that plane killing themselves ..... there is "NO" way to stop such an act. If you are lucky you can make it more difficult, but you aren't going to stop anyone that intent on killing people.
    I don't buy that. I believe attacks like that can indeed be thwarted. If they couldn't be, then there's no point in fighting terrorism. But one thing is for certain -- doing absolutely nothing will not prevent an attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post

    That same holds true, if someone wanted you or I dead, and they made up that mind that at any cost they were going to get us, then by gawd I'll be willing to bet he would.
    And under those circumstances, you or I would do everything within our power to protect ourselves. Neither one of us would simply sit back and accept our fate was doomed, believing that person was so intent on killing us that they would succeed. We wouldn't do what Bush did, which was to ignore the warnings and do absolutely nothing to protect the nation he led.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post

    But hey .. if you really feel that way .. here is some intel for you . . in LA, sometime this week .. . there is going to be a drive by shooting. It's going to be done by gang members. Now I expect that to be stopped ... .after all .. I narrowed it down to a week, gave you the city, and narrowed it down to one of the gangs there. That intel is 250 time more specific then was given to Bush. So there should be no problem right ?
    I find that analogy rather absurd. You are basing a potential crime based on statistics and not on intelligence and comparing that with a terrorist attack which had a mountain of intelligence. Even so, L.A. police will be working vigilantly to prevent crime, whereas Bush did nothing.

    And while I have no choice but to agree the PDB handed Bush was vague, he still could have taken some action. It did mention possible hijackings and it did mention New York. Clinton was also handed a PDB warning him of a possible attack, not as vague as Bush's, but he still took action and had airport security raised during the threat at some airports in the northeast. Did it thwart the attack? Who knows? Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. But the attack didn't go off as planned. Fast forward 3 years and now George Bush is in the White House, he does absolutely nothing to prevent an attack he knows is coming. And within little over an hour, 4 planes are hijacked and kamazied into the WTC and the Pentagon.

    And to be clear, I'm not saying even had he done something, it would have been successful at thwarting the attack; I'm just amazed anyone can defend him doing absolutely nothing.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post

    Oh and one other piece of information, show me one time that Bush ever blamed Clinton for the attacks of 9/11..... show Me one time where Bush was running around pointing fingers at Clinton for him inheriting the dot com bust. Yet here we are nearly 3 years after Obama takes office, and we are "still" hearing how it's Bush's fault .. . or the Republicans fault, or the tea party's fault .... Pardon me for saying this, but I think that speaks volumes as to the character of both of them.
    Bush blaming clinton (and Reagan) for 9.11 ...

    "They looked at our response after the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy." ~ George Bush, 8.30.2005

    Bush blaming Clinton for the economy ...

    "The American economy began slowing last summer." ~ George Bush, 3.27.2001

    "When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession." ~ George Bush, 8.30.2005

    "You know, I'm the President during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President." ~ George Bush, 12.1.2008


  5. #1045
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael H View Post
    Post# 670 A loan is not a bailout.

    As you recall I stated the FED bailed out the gamblers, I wasn't about TARP. Was it 16 trillion in loans ... definitely yes. Were the PDCF loans long term credit ... no, were the PDCF loans used long term ... YES.

    Did I state by the way ... the FED bailed out gamblers with 16 trillion in secret long term loans or did I state the FED bailed out gamblers with 16 trillion secret loans? I don't consider the TAF loans very long term. The term was long enough to turn the gamblers fortunes around ... long enough, which in the end was the whole point of the FED bailing them out.

    Did you think the FED tried to avoid and discourage the investigation so the public would lose faith ... was because all was rosy at the farm? Did they want people to know about the shady practices and junk backing loans?

    So you think by stating the "company" mission policy of the FED ... you change what actually happened? Is that "honest"?

    Read your post again and tell me anything you stated ... anything which supports the debate I was wrong!

    That reply was empty ... and you finish with an insult. A no substance post declaring victory. Right wingers like you always pull that crap.
    There were not $16 trillion in loans; that much is certain. As explained, the counting techniques employed for the $16 trillion figure were factored to reflect term, and therefore they loans in question amounted to about $1.39 trillion, if i remember correctly.

    It was in no way an insult, just an honest observation made by assessing the content of your posts in regards to the subject at hand.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  6. #1046
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael H View Post
    I've presented evidence of a bailout by the FED. Evidence of 16 Trillion in loans. Goldenboy you have not presented 1 shred of evidence to the contrary.

    Nyah, Nyah, I win the debate and I'm smarter then you, and you have no knowledge of the industry ... is not evidence. As you purport to support honest debate and you will swoop in to challenge dishonesty, its disappointing to see you not present evidence to support your contentions.

    I win is not evidence of supporting your debate.
    You were given the evidence, and lacked the will to actually respond to anything i have stated; choosing instead to hide behind straw men as though they have any meaning.

    It was not $16 trillion.

    Page 146 of the GAO report outlines the actual loan amounts on a term adjusted basis.

    GAO factored II.jpg

    to which it is stated directly under that real amount:

    Note: The dollar amounts borrowed for each loan were term-adjusted by multiplying the loan amount by the term to maturity for the loan and dividing by 365 days. Term to maturity is calculated as the difference between the original loan maturity date and the trade date and does not reflect repayments of loans that occurred before the original loan maturity date. Total borrowing is aggregated at the parent company level and generally includes borrowing by branches, agencies, subsidiaries, and sponsored ABCP conduits that we could identify. Total borrowing for each parent company consolidates amounts borrowed by acquired institutions following the completion of acquisitions. PDCF totals include credit extensions to affiliates of some primary dealers and TSLF totals includeloans under the TSLF Options Program (TOP).
    Now please end your desperate attempt to save face, as this is really getting boring.

    BTW, you were given adequate evidence from your own source. But because you failed to actually read the report, your argument failed with it.

    Original Evidence
    Last edited by Kushinator; 09-08-11 at 12:40 AM.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  7. #1047
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    09-25-11 @ 12:44 PM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    157

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    There were not $16 trillion in loans; that much is certain. As explained, the counting techniques employed for the $16 trillion figure were factored to reflect term, and therefore they loans in question amounted to about $1.39 trillion, if i remember correctly.

    It was in no way an insult, just an honest observation made by assessing the content of your posts in regards to the subject at hand.
    It is true that I'm not an expert in Economics. However common sense goes a long way. As I said I don't consider any of the loans "long term" but they were long enough to get these business back on their feet, through the efforts of the FED. The FED helped most of them succeed by accepting their junk.

    Now none of these loans were long term and does 16 trillion translate to 3 trillion when considered like an auto loan? Probably, I'm not sure the way they rolled the PDCF loans over daily. What type of term are you trying to translate them into? So approach the term as you will, unless the investigators are lying (the FED agreed with the conclusions) there was 16 trillion in various terms, providing different benefits.
    If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. Patton
    New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common. John Locke

  8. #1048
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    09-25-11 @ 12:44 PM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    157

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    You were given the evidence, and lacked the will to actually respond to anything i have stated; choosing instead to hide behind straw men as though they have any meaning.

    It was not $16 trillion.

    Page 146 of the GAO report outlines the actual loan amounts on a term adjusted basis.

    GAO factored II.jpg

    to which it is stated directly under that real amount:



    Now please end your desperate attempt to save face, as this is really getting boring.

    BTW, you were given adequate evidence from your own source. But because you failed to actually read the report, your argument failed with it.

    Original Evidence
    Lmao, You just did it again ... you adjusted the term to dismiss the quantity of loans. So you get to adjust the term of the loan ... because why?

    And why do you suppose ... now you got me laughing ... why do you suppose it was presented in adjusted term in the report? Think really hard.

    16 trillion in loans do not go away because you put it in adjusted terms.

    So if I go to my bank and borrow $36,500 for 1 day ... did I borrow $36,500 or did I borrow $100
    So if I go to my bank and borrow $36,500 for 4 years ... did I borrow $9,125 or did I borrow $36,500

    adjust the terms it changes reality.
    If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. Patton
    New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common. John Locke

  9. #1049
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    This really is getting old, I am now convinced that you really aren't that smart as you say the same things over and over again all in hopes that if you say it often enough it will be accurate.
    Uh-oh!






    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    Bush did not have a trillion dollar deficit in 2009 unless he ran that deficit from Dallas.
    Aside from the fact that Bush's budget ran trhough September, 2009, plus TARP, plus supplimentals for his wars, he's responsible for well over a trillion dollars, the FY2008 deficit also topped a trillion dollars.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    Regarding 9/11, do you know the difference between direct and indirect costs? Of course not.
    Well I've offered you many opportunities to show where in that GAO report it said the cost was above the $639B it stated was the "estimated loss" "to the United States," but you folded like a bad poker hand; I asked many times for you to show where it stated that $639B was not the total cost, but you ran away like a frightened schoolgirl; I challenged you to show where that report stated direct + indirect costs exceeded a trillion dollars, but you failed like the 2008 Lions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    Get over your BDS, it really is a sickness. If Bush ran against Obama I would vote for him again as I will take the Bush results vs. Obama's any day. Still waiting for you to put them side by side using nominal numbers.
    Speaking of sickness ... I've posted those side-by-side comparisons about 5 times now and yet you're still waiting for them.

  10. #1050
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael H View Post
    It is true that I'm not an expert in Economics. However common sense goes a long way. As I said I don't consider any of the loans "long term" but they were long enough to get these business back on their feet, through the efforts of the FED. The FED helped most of them succeed by accepting their junk.

    Now none of these loans were long term and does 16 trillion translate to 3 trillion when considered like an auto loan? Probably, I'm not sure the way they rolled the PDCF loans over daily. What type of term are you trying to translate them into? So approach the term as you will, unless the investigators are lying (the FED agreed with the conclusions) there was 16 trillion in various terms, providing different benefits.
    I take issue with the way the came up with $16 trillion, because in reality, it should have been closer to $40 trillion if we applied the same counting techniques across all lending facilities. Why did the GAO chose to go this route? Beats me, but at least they had the intellectual honesty to to put the loans into a proper context.

    All in all, the Fed lent out about $1.39 trillion, and it was in no way "secret".

    The real question is, do you understand why?
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •