jpiretti

Let the debate begin: Senators Lincoln and Landrieu indicate they'll vote Yes on the motion to debate the Senate health care bill. Both also say they won't vote for cloture on the bill unless the debate process leads to further concessions, especially on the public option. But post-debate, the bill only needs 50 votes to pass. (via)

Something to consider...in 2004, by executive fiat, the SEC allowed the 5 (that was the number at the time) leading investment banks to move from an industry standard 12 times leverage on their balance sheet to over 40 to1. These net capital rules and the proceeding securitization of almost everything (which led to huge fees) destroyed, by some estimates 13 trillion dollars of capital. Anything the govt. has spent to re-fill the hole in our economy is miniscule...who should you be pissed off at?...and, just out of curiosity, who do you want to de-regulate?


On Nov 21 11:37 PM Wyatt Junker wrote:

> Can't wait until next year: After nationalized banks, nationalized
> autos and nationalized anal exams we can look forward to nationalized
> air with a stunning and new carbon tax credit as we fill our lungs
> with enough government to suffocate us all.

In his weekly address, President Obama warned the U.S. should not return to credit-fueled growth, urging people to spend less and save more, while calling for a greater focus on exports to Asia. He also said it's important the upcoming jobs forum "not undertake any ill-considered decisions, particularly at a time when our resources are so limited."

No...They sell toys with toxic paint and we sell high grade technology...at least that is the opportunity that presents itself.

On Nov 21 05:59 PM DW Reid wrote:

> Um, but the per capita income in China is less than 6k. Is he saying
> China should binge on credit (they already have) and buy our useless
> crap? That would show them.

In his weekly address, President Obama warned the U.S. should not return to credit-fueled growth, urging people to spend less and save more, while calling for a greater focus on exports to Asia. He also said it's important the upcoming jobs forum "not undertake any ill-considered decisions, particularly at a time when our resources are so limited."

It means that while Asia (primarily China) transform their economies from one of cheap labor and exports, to one of domestic consumption, there will be an opportunity for the US economy to fill those consumption needs..especially since China has become the biggest global consumer of green technology. If the US does what it did in the 90's and provides R&D research block grants to small and mid sized businesses, there will be an opportunity for the US to become the cutting edge technology producers we once were. It pains me to see the US in ten short years, go from the technological envy of the world, to settling on a 3rd world wireless and power transmission grid. Shame on us for allowing it to happen.


On Nov 21 03:56 PM spald_fr wrote:

> [President 0bama warned the U.S. should not return to credit-fueled
> growth, urging people to spend less and save more, while calling
> for a greater focus on exports to Asia.]
>
> Exports to Asia? What the h*ll does that mean? The only thing we
> export are Treasury notes. He wants more???

Let the debate begin: Senators Lincoln and Landrieu indicate they'll vote Yes on the motion to debate the Senate health care bill. Both also say they won't vote for cloture on the bill unless the debate process leads to further concessions, especially on the public option. But post-debate, the bill only needs 50 votes to pass. (via)

I have gotten to the point where I see Liebermann as a complete tool of the special interest, but his views on insurance/health care reform can't come as a complete surprise...after all he is a senator from the state of CT., home of Hartford, the insurance capital of the US.


On Nov 21 03:53 PM spald_fr wrote:

> What happened to "Independent" Joe Liebermann of CT? What a b*astard!

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker say they're opposed to auditing the Fed, noting the measure would destroy the central bank's independence (.pdf). Fed chief Ben Bernanke told Congress in June that Sen. Ron Paul's provision "would effectively be a takeover of policy by the Congress and would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the dollar and our national economic situation."

The 5 largest campaign recipients of Fannie,Freddie PAC money from 1989-2008 is as follows...from most to least:
1) Blunt (R) MO
2) Bennett (R) UT
3) Bachus (R) AL
4) Bond (R) MO
5) Boehner (R) OH
5) Reid (D) NV tied

Your right, I do see a pattern...one of hypocrisy.


On Nov 20 07:53 AM MarketGuy wrote:

> It's quite simple really...anyone who has the potential of exposure
> from an audit will oppose it vehemently. Just look at the list of
> Congressional Reps who voted against the bill yesterday. It's almost
> a "who's-who" list of people who shot down regulation on Fannie and
> Freddie in years past. Hmmm, see a pattern here?

Three Democratic senators could vote against the healthcare reform bill in the Senate, which would scuttle the bill.

Fox News? Let's play a little game..."Death Panels" True or False?
If you say False, there is hope for you...If you say True, well then welcome back from your coma.


On Nov 18 09:00 AM cyclingscholar wrote:

> AMEN! The world should get down on its knees and thank Fox News,
> without which this monstrosity would have passed. Continue to play
> to NO'Bama medical care and medical technology portfolios.

Three Democratic senators could vote against the healthcare reform bill in the Senate, which would scuttle the bill.

The right wants a free market? You mean the type of free market where big Pharma gets a 14% premium in Medicare part D with no added benefit to the elderly?....a bill that doesn't allow competitive bidding?...a bill that Tom Delay had to bribe other Republicans to get passed and the Medicare actuarial's job had to be threatened so he didn't divulge the additional 200 billion dollars over 10 years that it would cost? The same people who controlled the so-called right in 2004, control the right today. Do yourself a favor, and don't let yourself become a tool of the crooks.

On Nov 18 09:16 AM The Geoffster wrote:

> Nothing demonstrates the corruption of our political system better
> than the health care debate. It may have begun as reform, but it
> became mired in grid lock courtesy of special interests. The left
> wants a single payer system to cement government control. The right
> wants free market reforms to lessen the power of government. Everyone
> else wants what they want and they want someone else to pay for it.

The government wants GM back out there trading publicly sooner than later, says auto task force chief Ron Bloom, so that it can cut its near-61% stake in the automaker. The U.S. would like to fast-track an IPO for the fourth quarter of 2010 if targets are hit, though GM chairman Ed Whitacre has fretted about that pace.

In this case the government is the taxpayer is the investor. You seem to be suffering from cognitive dissidence.


On Nov 18 11:58 AM 7footMoose wrote:

> in either case the taxpayer is getting shafted, GM is at best a ten
> year play, buying an IPO next year is a complete waste of ones liquidity,
> let the government hold onto the dog

John Paulson says Bank of America (BAC +3.1%) shares will almost double over the next two years as writedowns ease. "Banks will have passed the current writedown cycle and have visibility for growth in 2012," the hedge-fund giant told investors in his Q3 letter. Paulson's holdings likely rank him among the 10 biggest stakeholders in BofA.

So a rumor that was perpetuated by the NY Post and Fox Business News (both Murdoch companies) and debunked by Reuters the same day, but does not profit Paulson at all, was done for what reason? You and MarketGuy should start your own fund because both of you are soooo much smarter than John Paulson.


On Nov 18 11:01 AM dogtrack2 wrote:

> Same billionare scam artist who spread the rumor that Cit Group would
> merge before they went BANKRUPT.

Around 14,700 wealthy Americans came forward to take part in the IRS' "unprecedented" offshore tax amnesty program, says IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman. "We were flooded with people coming in the final days of the program ... We are talking about billions of dollars coming into the U.S. Treasury."

If they are friends of Phil Gramm, probably a bunch.


On Nov 17 11:42 AM Angel Martin wrote:

> Are the names being kept confidential?
>
> I want to know how many politicians are amongst the 14,700.

Around 14,700 wealthy Americans came forward to take part in the IRS' "unprecedented" offshore tax amnesty program, says IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman. "We were flooded with people coming in the final days of the program ... We are talking about billions of dollars coming into the U.S. Treasury."

"At the center of the U.S. efforts to combat tax evasion abroad is a case against Swiss banking giant UBS AG, which led the bank to agree to reveal the names of 4,450 client accounts."

This from the NYT "In the wake of the UBS settlement with the United States government over bank secrecy and offshore tax evasion, some questions have been raised about whether former Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who is now a vice chairman at UBS knew about the Swiss bank’s offshore activities and whether he blocked laws meant to prevent tax evasion. "

With all the problems I have with Tim Geithner, can you imagine this clown as Tresy Secy, because that's what would have happened had McCain won.

Barney Frank says a cap of $200B will apply to a fund the Financial Services Committee wants to establish to dismantle large failed firms. The fund would draw from large institutions and hedge funds with $10B in capital or more.

Sorry, Here is the link...good reading to the brain trust.

www.dallasfed.org/ca/b...


On Nov 17 01:57 PM jpiretti wrote:

> Here is a link to the Dallas Fed's analysis of the sub-prime crisis.
>
> C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\Dallas Fed CRA Subprime
> analysis.mht.
> One entry sticks out to me..."Only 6 percent of higher-priced loan
> originations made by banking institutions and their affiliates in
> 2005 and 2006 went to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income
> neighborhoods within CRA assessment areas" The vast majority of bad
> loans came from non-regulated financial entities i.e. Countrywide.
> I would hope all on this thread would read the report and comment
> accordingly.

Barney Frank says a cap of $200B will apply to a fund the Financial Services Committee wants to establish to dismantle large failed firms. The fund would draw from large institutions and hedge funds with $10B in capital or more.

Here is a link to the Dallas Fed's analysis of the sub-prime crisis.
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\Dallas Fed CRA Subprime analysis.mht.
One entry sticks out to me..."Only 6 percent of higher-priced loan originations made by banking institutions and their affiliates in 2005 and 2006 went to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods within CRA assessment areas" The vast majority of bad loans came from non-regulated financial entities i.e. Countrywide. I would hope all on this thread would read the report and comment accordingly.


On Nov 17 12:45 PM Mad_Max_A_Million wrote:

> Why are they allowing Foxy Barney back in the chicken coup. He has
> lost all creditability with his housing bubble.
> Don't they have a simple secretary job they can give him like the
> one that Nancy Pelosi had before they made her the queen and ruler
> of the House? Or would that make too much sense?

After a sensible call for a jobs summit, "President Obama’s Herbert Hoover-like alter ego has re-emerged again to warn us again about the evils of government deficit spending." An argument why deficit terrorism isn't the answer.

For all of those out there that rant and rave about Obama being a socialist, communist, fascist or member of NAMBLA...a simple question...did you vote for a second term of Bush 43? If the answer is yes then where in the hell did you buy your credibility?...because you have not earned it anywhere or anyhow. You are the equivalent of Bill Kristol analyzing foreign policy (the tension between Sunnis and Shia is pop psychology) or Larry Kudlow analyzing the markets (Nov. 2007 is just the beginning of the Bush boom years). What historical event and policy response do you hang your ideology on? The Reagan Revolution? Unemployment went from 7.6% (1/81) to 10.8% (12/82) and Debt/GDP ratios went parabolic. Please...some one explain to me what historical event drives your ideology.

After a sensible call for a jobs summit, "President Obama’s Herbert Hoover-like alter ego has re-emerged again to warn us again about the evils of government deficit spending." An argument why deficit terrorism isn't the answer.

I suggest everyone on this thread google the phrase " US debt/GDP 1933-2008" Govt. spending can be a drain or it can be an investment (notice the 90's). I find many to many folks on these threads suffer from single ledger accounting myopithy. If you are a Reagan/Bush 41 or Bush 43 fan, you will see that the tax cuts/military spending combination produced a lousy return on investment as measured by debt/GDP. Here is a link if you are a true student of economic history.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...


On Nov 14 10:36 AM Mike from NYC wrote:

> With your myopic vision you would have us believe that Obama created
> all the deficits and all the problems facing the USA in less than
> one year.
>
> For more than 30 years failed leadership, both political and economic,
> has led us to this point in time.