• 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!

Was A Big Deal Ever Possible?

Was it Ever?

  • Total voters
    28
earthworm said:
Define "no one".
I have suggested that the tax rates be restored to those of the Clinton Era.
What we do need to do is work on the trade balance deficit,
We cannot continue to have our money on a one-way joyride to Arabia and China..
We do seem to need help from Japan and Germany...and Russia...
Click to expand...

I was thanking mostly those in government who are making serious proposals, likely to be heard.

As for Clinton Era, even that would be below historic highs.

The rest? I'm willing to hear that debate out.
 
1Perry said:
Better management? We gave Chrysler away and have no say in management and just lost 1.3 trillion dollars on it. Chrysler had to pay the money back the last time they were bailed out. Don't try and revise history.
Click to expand...

You are correct about 1980. My mistake. Must be getting old. I'll check on the rest later.


They were sold off to F&F. F&F did nothing to ensure that these loans were good because they didn't care. Part of the agreement was also that any bad loans were to be bought back by the originating source. That being Goldman Sachs. How many of these loans have GS been forced to buy back? They are making record profits while we are pouring more and more money into the bad loans. Why is that?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but all those loan flippers did not sell their loans to F&F. They sold them everywhere.

Steven Gjerstad and Vernon Smith Explain Why the Housing Crash Ruined the Financial System but the Dot-com Collapse Did Not - WSJ.com

Top 10 Reasons For United States Real Estate Crash, Housing Plunge

http://www.realestatedecline.com/top_10_reasons_for_american_housing_crash.htm


Bankruptcy does NOT mean you go out of business and everyone loses their job. Where does this idea come from? (I know where it comes from)
Click to expand...

I was taking it to the worse possible outcome. A failing business. Not sure you do know where it comes from. ;)
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but all those loan flippers did not sell their loans to F&F. They sold them everywhere.
Click to expand...

No, they did not sell every single one to F&F but they sold a large portion to them. That doesn't answer the question as to why we have not forced these bad loans back on them though.

I was taking it to the worse possible outcome. A failing business. Not sure you do know where it comes from. ;)
Click to expand...

That is the line the government promoted. There was no reason for the worse possible outcome. Just like we are not going to default.
 
1Perry said:
No, they did not sell every single one to F&F but they sold a large portion to them. That doesn't answer the question as to why we have not forced these bad loans back on them though.
Click to expand...

Can't answer why yet. But these guys went to a lot of trouble to cheat a lot of people. Their skeme was complicated, and they bet on failure. It wasn't F&F that was largely to blame, but a lack of oversigt, deregulation, and banking greed, with a mechanism that allowed them to sell loans, and that removed responsibility from the lender.


That is the line the government promoted. There was no reason for the worse possible outcome. Just like we are not going to default.
Click to expand...

I do recall read more than a few things outside the government promoting that thought. I'm trying to get out of here presently, but I will try to look for something for you later tonight.
 
Boo Radley said:
Can't answer why yet. But these guys went to a lot of trouble to cheat a lot of people. Their skeme was complicated, and they bet on failure. It wasn't F&F that was largely to blame, but a lack of oversigt, deregulation, and banking greed, with a mechanism that allowed them to sell loans, and that removed responsibility from the lender.
Click to expand...

"Largely" to blame? What does that mean? The played a pretty big role. They bought up these bad loans without a care as to what was in them. Let's me make something clear once again. The mechanism did not remove the responsibility from the lender. They are responsible for them BUT nobody is making them responsible.

I do recall read more than a few things outside the government promoting that thought. I'm trying to get out of here presently, but I will try to look for something for you later tonight.
Click to expand...

Well yes, there were many who had something to gain from this viewpoint.
 
1Perry said:
"Largely" to blame? What does that mean? The played a pretty big role. They bought up these bad loans without a care as to what was in them. Let's me make something clear once again. The mechanism did not remove the responsibility from the lender. They are responsible for them BUT nobody is making them responsible.
Click to expand...

Not those who originally made the loans. They sold them. In some cases, more than a few times.

Largely = the bigger share of the blame, the larger problem, what needed most to be addressed. I'm not suggesting there was nothing wrong with F&F, but that even if they were perfect, the problem existed elsewhere.

Well yes, there were many who had something to gain from this viewpoint.
Click to expand...

To gain? What?
 
This was the type of article I was refering to 1Perry:

To rebuild their world, three major automakers are in Washington today to plead for a $25 billion rescue plan -- a plan they believe could prevent millions of jobs from being lost.

The Big Three automakers -- Ford, General Motors and Chrysler -- employ about 240,000 workers. An additional 2.3 million Americans, or 2 percent of the nation's work force, have jobs in related supply industries. Beyond that are the jobs in communities that depend on auto factories to survive, including waiters, retailers and doctors -- roughly 13 million jobs from coast to coast.

Failure in the Auto Industry Could Affect 13 Million Jobs - ABC News
 
Boo Radley said:
Not those who originally made the loans. They sold them. In some cases, more than a few times.

Largely = the bigger share of the blame, the larger problem, what needed most to be addressed. I'm not suggesting there was nothing wrong with F&F, but that even if they were perfect, the problem existed elsewhere.
Click to expand...

F&F bought the largest share of these loans. Without the knowledge that there was a quasi government entity out there willing to scoop up these loans very few of them would have been made in the first place.

To gain? What?
Click to expand...

Well the unions were able to gain part ownership.

Found any reason why GS hasn't been forced to take these bad loans back yet?
 
Boo Radley said:
This was the type of article I was refering to 1Perry:

To rebuild their world, three major automakers are in Washington today to plead for a $25 billion rescue plan -- a plan they believe could prevent millions of jobs from being lost.

The Big Three automakers -- Ford, General Motors and Chrysler -- employ about 240,000 workers. An additional 2.3 million Americans, or 2 percent of the nation's work force, have jobs in related supply industries. Beyond that are the jobs in communities that depend on auto factories to survive, including waiters, retailers and doctors -- roughly 13 million jobs from coast to coast.

Failure in the Auto Industry Could Affect 13 Million Jobs - ABC News
Click to expand...

I understand what the articles stated. Read the article now and they all still insist that an agreement must be made by the 2nd to avoid default. That's simply not true but for some reason it's failed to stop them from repeating it.
 
1Perry said:
I understand what the articles stated. Read the article now and they all still insist that an agreement must be made by the 2nd to avoid default. That's simply not true but for some reason it's failed to stop them from repeating it.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any good that comes from default. Nor is there any reason to go there. Our leaders are simply not doing their job. As far as truth goes, what if it is and your wrong?
 
1Perry said:
F&F bought the largest share of these loans. Without the knowledge that there was a quasi government entity out there willing to scoop up these loans very few of them would have been made in the first place.
Click to expand...

I see nothing to support that. I see everyone and his bother buying and selling, and not just to government, but any idiot silly enough to buy them.


Well the unions were able to gain part ownership.

Found any reason why GS hasn't been forced to take these bad loans back yet?
Click to expand...

Unions didn't wrte the articles. So, what would they ahve to do with it? :confused:

Published: April 27, 2011

But on Thursday, the company will announce a milestone in its comeback effort, declaring its intention to repay its $7.5 billion in high-interest loans — $5.8 billion to the United States government and $1.7 billion to Canada’s — as soon as next month by selling new bonds to investors.

Once it pays back the loans, Chrysler can strengthen its ties to Fiat, its Italian partner, and begin adding more fuel-efficient cars to its truck-heavy lineup.

Sergio Marchionne, the chief executive of both Chrysler and Fiat, is expected to announce the debt plan Thursday when he welcomes the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, for a tour of the company’s Jeep plant on Detroit’s east side.

Although details of the debt offering, to be led by Goldman Sachs, are still being negotiated, Chrysler intends to use the proceeds of the sale to help it pay off all of the government loans, according to people familiar with Chrysler’s plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/business/28chrysler.html

The lenders knew that Wall Street would ignore the abusive lending to hedge their bets. Goldman understood this and not only offered the mortgage backed certificates as a sound investment to their investors but secretly placed a $10 million bet that the mortgages would fail – and when the mortgages did fail, then the AIG policy would pay out $3 billion to Goldman. All in all, Goldman picked up $12.8 billion in six transactions from AIG from an estimated $50 million dollar investment. Most importantly, Goldman could not have made this money without the abusive predatory lending on the homeowner.”

Bad Home Loans Gamble Pays Off for Wall Street | BusinessNews Express

How Does Goldman Sachs Make Its Profits? (Part 1) - Inside Job - Exposing economic crisis shocking truths

How Does Goldman Sachs Make Its Profits (Part 2) - Inside Job - Exposing economic crisis shocking truths

http://www.upstartblogger.com/full-movie-inside-job

Goldman Sachs Information, Comments, Opinions and Facts: Inside Job: The Story About the "Crash" That Could Have Been Avoided
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't think there is any good that comes from default. Nor is there any reason to go there. Our leaders are simply not doing their job. As far as truth goes, what if it is and your wrong?
Click to expand...

I'm not. Basic math will tell one that.
 
Boo Radley said:
The lenders knew that Wall Street would ignore the abusive lending to hedge their bets. Goldman understood this and not only offered the mortgage backed certificates as a sound investment to their investors but secretly placed a $10 million bet that the mortgages would fail – and when the mortgages did fail, then the AIG policy would pay out $3 billion to Goldman. All in all, Goldman picked up $12.8 billion in six transactions from AIG from an estimated $50 million dollar investment. Most importantly, Goldman could not have made this money without the abusive predatory lending on the homeowner.”
Click to expand...

I'm not skipping the rest. I'm not where I can take the time to find the info I need. We will revist the rest. This is my main complaint. Why has GS been allowed to get away with this?
 
1Perry said:
I'm not skipping the rest. I'm not where I can take the time to find the info I need. We will revist the rest. This is my main complaint. Why has GS been allowed to get away with this?
Click to expand...

No problem. I sometimes have to come back to something myself.

That's what I linked the film. They do mention this. Don't know if I have that part linked for sure, but in the film they do discuss it.
 
cpwill said:
as I understand it, we will take in about 180 Billion. Servicing the debt will require 30 Billion. I'm no astrophysiologicist, but it seems to me that 180 > 30


oh look! quietly Obama is telling the banks the same thing.


:) looks like the Munificent Sun God President just pulled the rug out from under you ;)
Click to expand...

The debt ceiling will not be stabilized by either party because the real cause of our poor economy is not being addressed, we have a revenue problem that can only be solved by creating work, real jobs that pay a descent living wage, MacDonald and Walmart are okay but the wage that they pay will not produce the tax revenues that we need to fuel our economy.

We are in a boat heading quickly in the wrong direction and we have no paddles in other words we are up ch-t creek without a paddle.
 
cpwill said:
as I understand it, we will take in about 180 Billion. Servicing the debt will require 30 Billion. I'm no astrophysiologicist, but it seems to me that 180 > 30


oh look! quietly Obama is telling the banks the same thing.



:) looks like the Munificent Sun God President just pulled the rug out from under you ;)
Click to expand...

So, you're suggesting paying the debt, but not our national committments? Is that what I'm to understand?

Why is you guys never think in complete context?
 
Also CP, read your own article. The president has a responsibility to keep panic down, and not send the stock market over the edge. See the big picture, take in all of it, not just a small part you choose to focus on, as if nothing else exists.
 
Boo Radley said:
No problem. I sometimes have to come back to something myself.

That's what I linked the film. They do mention this. Don't know if I have that part linked for sure, but in the film they do discuss it.
Click to expand...

I didn't get to watch the movie but did read the commentary. It notes how there still isn't adequate regulations. That may be true but irrelevant to the fact that nobody is holding GS responsible for their actions. There ARE regulations in place. They are just being ignored. Just that same as there were many of these banks that ran afoul of Sarbannes/Oxley but not a single CEO has been charged.

That's the problem with those who claim we need more and more regulations. No, we just need the ones we have enforced. It's in large part why people do not have faith in the economy and the government right now. Watching G.S. make record profits while we are forced to eat their fraud isn't how you get people to get back to normal. Telling people that bank execs are immune from the laws of the country isn't going to make people have faith in the government.

People rant and rave over how one party or the other is at fault BUT it's clearly both parties. Bush and the GOP should have never agreed to have bailed them out in the first place and Obama has done absolutely nothing to enforce the rules and regulations we have in place to deter actions like this.

Back to the topic, it's a large reason a "big deal" is not possible. Reid, Boehner, Pelosi, McConnel all need to go.
 
Boo Radley said:
Also CP, read your own article. The president has a responsibility to keep panic down, and not send the stock market over the edge. See the big picture, take in all of it, not just a small part you choose to focus on, as if nothing else exists.
Click to expand...

You want to keep panic down? Do what he is supposed to do. Enforce our laws. Quit with this idea that taxpayers are responsible for the banks bad debts. If he did that, the economy would quickly turn around. It would also help to fire Geithner and Bernanke.

How are people to have faith in an economy run by the very guy who had a hand in helping to bring it down? (remember, Benny said just before they exploded that the banks were on solid footing)
 
1Perry said:
I didn't get to watch the movie but did read the commentary. It notes how there still isn't adequate regulations. That may be true but irrelevant to the fact that nobody is holding GS responsible for their actions. There ARE regulations in place. They are just being ignored. Just that same as there were many of these banks that ran afoul of Sarbannes/Oxley but not a single CEO has been charged.

That's the problem with those who claim we need more and more regulations. No, we just need the ones we have enforced. It's in large part why people do not have faith in the economy and the government right now. Watching G.S. make record profits while we are forced to eat their fraud isn't how you get people to get back to normal. Telling people that bank execs are immune from the laws of the country isn't going to make people have faith in the government.

People rant and rave over how one party or the other is at fault BUT it's clearly both parties. Bush and the GOP should have never agreed to have bailed them out in the first place and Obama has done absolutely nothing to enforce the rules and regulations we have in place to deter actions like this.

Back to the topic, it's a large reason a "big deal" is not possible. Reid, Boehner, Pelosi, McConnel all need to go.
Click to expand...

They go beyond that in the film, and not how many who work for the government has ties to firms like Goldman Sachs.

And while we have some regulations in place, it is the ones we lsot as we deregulated that allowed such things to happen, not to mention folks like Greenspan refused to actually do what he / they could have done.

Now, sure, people rant. I personally blame both parties and don't see all that much difference between the two. At least not as much difference as we should see. And for the record, I have no problem with your lasr sentence. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
They go beyond that in the film, and not how many who work for the government has ties to firms like Goldman Sachs.
Click to expand...

Yes, in the past AND currently. There is absolutely not difference in the GOP or Dems on this matter. None.

And while we have some regulations in place, it is the ones we lsot as we deregulated that allowed such things to happen, not to mention folks like Greenspan refused to actually do what he / they could have done.
Click to expand...

Some of the regulations that were removed (under Clinton) allowed fraud to happen (under CLinton and Bush) but much of this fraud was still things we could have stopped (mostly under Bush) but did not. It was removed for two reasons though. So the investment banks could make record profits and so that people like Barney Frank could try their social experiments out on the country.

Now, sure, people rant. I personally blame both parties and don't see all that much difference between the two. At least not as much difference as we should see. And for the record, I have no problem with your lasr sentence. ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks but unfortunately those who understand that it's a problem with government (working with a financial system happy to go along) and not a party specific problem are few.
 
1Perry said:
Yes, in the past AND currently. There is absolutely not difference in the GOP or Dems on this matter. None.



Some of the regulations that were removed (under Clinton) allowed fraud to happen (under CLinton and Bush) but much of this fraud was still things we could have stopped (mostly under Bush) but did not. It was removed for two reasons though. So the investment banks could make record profits and so that people like Barney Frank could try their social experiments out on the country.



Thanks but unfortunately those who understand that it's a problem with government (working with a financial system happy to go along) and not a party specific problem are few.
Click to expand...

We agree it si not a party specific problem, and that there is little to no difference between the parties. However, I think you put too much, and I would call it partisan, emphasis on Frank. There are proper reasons for wanting more Americans to become homeowners.
 
Boo Radley said:
And while we have some regulations in place, it is the ones we lsot as we deregulated that allowed such things to happen, not to mention folks like Greenspan refused to actually do what he / they could have done.

Now, sure, people rant. I personally blame both parties and don't see all that much difference between the two. At least not as much difference as we should see. And for the record, I have no problem with your lasr sentence.
Click to expand...

Why not blame the big finance banks, like Goldman, in addition to the fed (formerly Greenspan) then, since you noted they were a big part of the issue? You have to blame them first, then seek to get backing by one or both political parties on the issue. If you simply blame both political parties, that makes neither have to change any behavior, since it becomes a moot point.

I mean that to us all, not so much you...beause you're right about some of the causes, but we all screw up when it comes to how to fix it (including government).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom