Just after Obama revealed his 6 point plan for increased regulation of the
financial sector the stock market decline continued with fervor.

Nancy Pelosi says Dems are not to blame for the economic mess, yet weren't
they supposed to take charge and make things better when they gained the
majority? The "do-nothing" Congress? Obviously Nancy isn't leading the way.
Obama doesn't show much leadership potential either.

If the Democrats were supposed to accomplish so much in the first 100 days,
why have they done so little for 700 days?

They had their turn and things aren't getting better.

wrote:
On 17 Sep 2008 12:52:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:09:38 -0600, "redbard" said:

If the Democrats were supposed to accomplish so much in the first 100 days,
why have they done so little for 700 days?

They had their turn and things aren't getting better.
Nice little piece in today's WSJ about how the Dems needing a fig leaf for
the election are pretending to authorize drilling offshore, knowing full
well it ainagonna happen because of law suits by their trial lawyer
supporters.

It would appear that the Republicans will defeat the bill when it
reaches the senate because they are against offshore drilling, even if
it's limited to 50 miles offshore. Those *******S!

Shows clearly, who is really intersted in trying to solve the problem.

The Republican position is that the fifty mile limit excludes most of
the continental shelf, that contains the oil.

If you look at a map of the coastal regions, you can see for yourself
where the continental shelf ends. It is widest off of the Maine coast
and off of Florida. The drilling would be essentially banned from North
Carolina to Cape Cod. There appears to be no shelf on the west coast.
(Get the facts, Check Google maps.) The shelf of the coast of Maine
would be extremely dangerous with the ice flows (Remember the Titanic),
so drilling would be difficult and extremely costly.

To drill for oil beyond fifty miles increase the cost of drill, to the
point where it is not economical. In essence the democrats would
accomplish their goal of stopping off shore drilling while pretending to
give in to their constituents demands.

If you don't like what the congressmen are doing contact them at
senate.gov or house.gov and tell them what you think should happen.

wrote in message
...
On 17 Sep 2008 13:18:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:59:57 -0400, said:

It would appear that the Republicans will defeat the bill when it
reaches the senate because they are against offshore drilling,

Um....I don't think so.

They are voting against it, Dave. Just a bunch of obstructionists who
talk about putting America first, but don't walk the walk.

This is nothing new.



But McCain has one heck of string of economic/financial advisors.

Right wingnuts... don't read this. You're head will explode.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-o..._b_127115.html

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote in message
...

Meanwhile, I wonder how Dave feels about his beloved banking industry
going on welfare. Those are some pretty big handouts. Lets hope all
that guvmint cheese doesn't jam the ATM machines.



"Big handouts" = 11% interest rate, 80% asset backed.

Meanwhile, TBills are going into negative returns.

Let's see: loan money at 11% and borrow it at a negative interest rate.

Big handout?

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:11:48 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..

Meanwhile, I wonder how Dave feels about his beloved banking industry
going on welfare. Those are some pretty big handouts. Lets hope all
that guvmint cheese doesn't jam the ATM machines.



"Big handouts" = 11% interest rate, 80% asset backed.

Meanwhile, TBills are going into negative returns.

Let's see: loan money at 11% and borrow it at a negative interest rate.

Big handout?


Where's my 85 Billion dollar loan at those terms?

You would pay 11% to borrow 85 billion with 80% asset backing the loan?


You bet your ass its a welfare handout!


With your financial acumen I wouldn't be surprised if you are regularly
familiar with welfare handouts.

I take it you aren't that inept in finance, that the problem is simply that
you're unfamiliar with the terms of the "big handouts".

If you don't understand what an 11% interest rate means to a large business,
get some acumen.

Have some more Kool-Aid!

wrote in message
...


Encouraging concentration of the businesses,
banking or other, in fewer and fewer large firms is a recipe for further
problems. No business should be too big to fail.

I don't want to alarm you, Dave, but I agree with a lot of this.


Also a great tonic for political parties!

Encouraging the concentration of political power into one party is a recipe
for further problems.

Electing Obama would put government in the hands of one political party.

Voting for Obama is a recipe for disaster.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:09:38 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:

Just after Obama revealed his 6 point plan for increased regulation of the
financial sector the stock market decline continued with fervor.

Nancy Pelosi says Dems are not to blame for the economic mess, yet weren't
they supposed to take charge and make things better when they gained the
majority? The "do-nothing" Congress? Obviously Nancy isn't leading the way.
Obama doesn't show much leadership potential either.

If the Democrats were supposed to accomplish so much in the first 100 days,
why have they done so little for 700 days?

They had their turn and things aren't getting better.




http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

For those not interested in reading all, I'll just copy my favorite
parts. This in 2003:


Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can
approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were
the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats
who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce
their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing
any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more
pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of
affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving
something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the
bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get
affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:34:15 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:11:48 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

Meanwhile, I wonder how Dave feels about his beloved banking industry
going on welfare. Those are some pretty big handouts. Lets hope all
that guvmint cheese doesn't jam the ATM machines.



"Big handouts" = 11% interest rate, 80% asset backed.

Meanwhile, TBills are going into negative returns.

Let's see: loan money at 11% and borrow it at a negative interest rate.

Big handout?


Where's my 85 Billion dollar loan at those terms?

You would pay 11% to borrow 85 billion with 80% asset backing the loan?


You bet your ass its a welfare handout!


With your financial acumen I wouldn't be surprised if you are regularly
familiar with welfare handouts.

I take it you aren't that inept in finance, that the problem is simply that
you're unfamiliar with the terms of the "big handouts".

If you don't understand what an 11% interest rate means to a large business,
get some acumen.

Have some more Kool-Aid!


Let me know when it's all paid back, will you?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:33:09 -0400, said:


Meanwhile, I wonder how Dave feels about his beloved banking industry
going on welfare.

Thus far, at least, it hasn't been the banks, but those on the other sides
of transactions with banks. (Investment banks are different beasts from
banks.) Next question is whether the guvmint will let WaMu go into FDIC
supervised liquidation.

That said, I think I said earlier that the bailout for Fan and Fred were
mistakes. Same with AIG. Essentially what's happening now is a huge game
of
musical chairs. It's not a matter of how much _will be_ lost on mortgage
backed securities and the related fallout. Those losses have already
occurred. The money's already been lost. Now we're just seeing who will
bear
the loss--which of the holders will be left without chairs when the music
stops. I'd rather see it be the stockholders and subordinated debt holders
of those institutions than the taxpayers. Bailouts just keep the music
playing for a bit longer.

Housing, and the mortgages financing them, need to find an equilibrium
market level. Until they do, lending for all purposes will be chilled.

People seem to lose site of the fact that when a company goes bust the
pieces left over don't just disappear into thin air. If Bear Stearns had
been allowed to fail, the people there, or at least some of them, would no
doubt have started up smaller investment banks--investment banks that
could
become bigger, dispersing the risk of failure of a few huge institutions.
Same thing with Fan and Fred. Encouraging concentration of the businesses,
banking or other, in fewer and fewer large firms is a recipe for further
problems. No business should be too big to fail.


Yep, you got it right. It doesn't matter how many people lose there jobs or
their homes, as long as the gov't does nothing.

Big difference between "should be to big" and "is too big" to fail.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:39:10 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .


Encouraging concentration of the businesses,
banking or other, in fewer and fewer large firms is a recipe for further
problems. No business should be too big to fail.

I don't want to alarm you, Dave, but I agree with a lot of this.


Also a great tonic for political parties!

Encouraging the concentration of political power into one party is a recipe
for further problems.

Electing Obama would put government in the hands of one political party.

Voting for Obama is a recipe for disaster.



You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe we have more than one
political party now as it is. Some people think we need a third party.
I'd be happy if we could at least manage two distinct ones.