TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Ok so the bailout was rejected, or whatever
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 »

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Vote out every fucking person who rejected it the first time and sides with it this time around. It's insulting to everyone.

i wouldnt go that far but i'm very disappointed right now and feel like a fool. very curious to see how the House will go on this.

for the record i now support the Paulson plan in it's entirety minus the rest of this crap that could've been voted on individually.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo for the record i now support the Paulson plan in it's entirety minus the rest of this crap that could've been voted on individually.

I was fine with pretty much all the things that the House shot down the first time around.

The "Paulson Plan" was not a bill. It was an outline of the course of action to solve the problem. Both sides sounded retarded when they made speeches about how it was deficient and how could they pass a plan that was only 3 pages. Of course it was going to get taxpayer safeguards included in it that the Congress had to hammer out. It isn't the Treasury's role to write a full bill, especially with such a novel idea. Paulson didn't really protest any of the House add-ons, but this new shit in the Senate bill is absurd. 300 more pages of crap, running up the bill another $100+ billion, including great provisions like removing the excise tax from wooden arrows for kids, as opposed to hunting arrows for adults (Sec. 503). Or making it easier to import rum like Sec. 308 provides.

Great job Republican House members. They knew that this close to election that there had to be some level of bi-partisanship on such a protested bill that was necessary.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo how about satisfied? probably a little better characterization of someone who prefaces "at least" describing someone who could "at most" lead half of her own party to eat crap.

What? Are you daft? "At least" implies that she was able to accomplish the task at a bare MINIMUM. Now I understand that with the Bush administration's record, you 22%ers have had to lower your standards of success, happiness, mission accomplished, or whatever you guys go by by now to the bare MINIMUM, but for the rest of the normal population, the preface of "at least" does not equate with satisfied.

quote:

i agree thats very "simple" but WOW talk about "mischaracterization". reminicent of the hissy fit the Dow had yesterday losing 7% FYI, these "hacks" actually work for the "ignoramouses" that voted them into office. when these hacks fight for a better bill and subsequent passage of it this week i'm sure we'll all forget who mischaracterized whom, right?

Well even despite the conversion of your support, I stand by my original statement: Those who voted against it were either ignorant of what was at stake or they were partisan hacks. I can either argue the economics of the former or the failure of doing what's best for our country on the latter.

quote:

Originally posted by ShakkaI believe the points in that video may account for about 1/3 of the cause of the problem.

Granted I didn't watch the entire video but I'm inclined to wonder what that 1/3 of the problem was. I know from a charter perspective both fannie and freddie were PROHIBITED from buying mortgages above a certain limit ($300,000 I think). As such you're always going to run into diversification issues with a cap like that. In addition, I know that every year, at the end of the year, there was a mad rush to push forth less than profitable deals, and credit questionable deals, in order to meet HUD goals. I have to say that HUD was a key driver of a lot of deals and well ... you know who set HUD goals.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4

So what's your fucking point? The very information you highlighted clearly states that blame is spread all over the place, which nobody, including myself, has denied. It has been you who has consistently, and rather persistently, insisted that the fallout from all of this somehow lies squarely and solely at the feet of the Bush administration. Sheesh.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Granted I didn't watch the entire video but I'm inclined to wonder what that 1/3 of the problem was. I know from a charter perspective both fannie and freddie were PROHIBITED from buying mortgages above a certain limit ($300,000 I think). As such you're always going to run into diversification issues with a cap like that. In addition, I know that every year, at the end of the year, there was a mad rush to push forth less than profitable deals, and credit questionable deals, in order to meet HUD goals. I have to say that HUD was a key driver of a lot of deals and well ... you know who set HUD goals.

1/3 is kind of arbitrary. Probably more like 1/4 - 1/5 or so, depending on how I allocate and weight blame between irresponsible borrowers, irresponsible lenders, irresponsible Fed policy, irresponsible regulators and irresponsible profit driven Wall Street investment bankers...

btw, I think that limit originally stood at like $285K, which was then moved up, and then moved up more recently to $417K, and might've even been raised again since then, but my head has been spinning so much lately that I can't specifically recall! I bet you're glad you left that job though!

It's kind of funny that Ron Paul was potentially writing about something like this back in 2005.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul282.html

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X It's kind of funny that Ron Paul was potentially writing about something like this back in 2005. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul282.html

He was potentially writing? Or was he actually writing? How does one potentially write? That's just silly!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka 1/3 is kind of arbitrary. Probably more like 1/4 - 1/5 or so, depending on how I allocate and weight blame between irresponsible borrowers, irresponsible lenders, irresponsible Fed policy, irresponsible regulators and irresponsible profit driven Wall Street investment bankers... btw, I think that limit originally stood at like $285K, which was then moved up, and then moved up more recently to $417K, and might've even been raised again since then, but my head has been spinning so much lately that I can't specifically recall! I bet you're glad you left that job though!

Actually I would probably be better off working there as I would have a safe, cushy government job now .

Anyway I think we're fucked. I think TARP is a day late and a dollar short. I think panic has set in in the money markets and not even TARP is going to ease the short term lending markets.

Now the freaking state of California needs a bailout because nobody will buy up its debt issuances ... the god damn state of California. I'm thinking unemployment is going to reach levels not seen since Volker.

quote:

Schwarzenegger Tells Paulson States May Need Loans (Update1) By Jerry Hart Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) -- California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger told the U.S. Treasury that his and other states may need emergency federal loans if turmoil in the credit markets continues to impede their access to financing. ``This credit crisis has the power to grind the U.S. economy to a halt,'' Schwarzenegger wrote in a letter e-mailed to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson last night, Treasury spokeswoman Jennifer Zuccarelli said in Washington today. ``Absent a clear resolution to this financial crisis that restores confidence and liquidity to the credit markets, California and other states may be unable to obtain the necessary level of financing to maintain government operations and may be forced to turn to the federal Treasury for short-term financing,'' Schwarzenegger wrote. Rising borrowing costs and declining investor appetite for anything but the safest bonds are forcing states, cities and towns to deter spending on projects from road improvements to maintenance on schools. California may run out of cash at the end of the month if the state can't sell billions in short-term debt, Treasurer Bill Lockyer said Oct. 1. Schwarzenegger said in his letter that California, the most populous U.S. state, expected to sell $7 billion of revenue anticipation notes in ``a matter of days.'' `So Large' ``While some states may be able to absorb a delay or obtain high-interest financing through private banks, California is so large that our short-term cash-flow needs exceed the entire budget of some states,'' Schwarzenegger wrote. Without the short-term funding, the state may be forced to halt or significantly delay payments for teachers' salaries, nursing homes, law enforcement and ``every other state-funded service,'' Lockyer said. Tax-exempt issuers have postponed more than $12 billion in note and bond deals since Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. declared bankruptcy Sept. 15, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Louisiana postponed plans to sell $500 million of bonds this month, while in Chicago, school officials will have to decide which improvements will go forward after delaying a similar offering. Erie County, New York, has delayed dozens of capital projects. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...oC3Q&refer=home

The House is voting. Looks like it will pass this time.

Passed.

And the market tanks anyway...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka He was potentially writing? Or was he actually writing? How does one potentially write? That's just silly!

I don't know but maybe I can help you figure it out.

Perhaps his crystal ball wasn't fully functioning when he wrote it?

I doubt that he KNEW FOR SURE that these things were going to pass, hence the potentially.

Nice Fibonacci av!

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I don't know but maybe I can help you figure it out. Perhaps his crystal ball wasn't fully functioning when he wrote it? I doubt that he KNEW FOR SURE that these things were going to pass, hence the potentially.

Potential describes the possiblity of the occurrence of something. You can't describe a past action as potentially occurring because it either did or didn't occur. I didn't read the article but I assume you mean that in 2005 he wrote about the potential for this kind of situation.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Potential describes the possiblity of the occurrence of something. You can't describe a past action as potentially occurring because it either did or didn't occur. I didn't read the article but I assume you mean that in 2005 he wrote about the potential for this kind of situation.

He wrote about the potentiality of it happening and it since has. He expressed the possibility of that which has already occurred.

How many different ways do I need to say it before it sinks in through those thick skulls? I could go on all day.


From the dictionary:

quote:

potentially One entry found. 2. expressing possibility ; specifically : of, relating to, or constituting a verb phrase expressing possibility

And geez, if you people could put this much effort into actually researching these topics rather than semantically trying to police my posts, maybe you'd be able to figure something out for yourselves once in a while. Rather than focusing so much on frivolities maybe you could try to look at the big picture for a change. That would be a great start, at least.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Nice Fibonacci av!

Thank you. I have better ones but unfortunately they didn't take as well to the reduced size of the avatar image so this one had to suffice.

(1 + sqrt5)/2

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X He wrote about the potentiality of it happening and it since has. He expressed the possibility of that which has already occurred. How many different ways do I need to say it before it sinks in through those thick skulls? I could go on all day.

yeah - that's what i wrote, but that's not what you originally wrote. You wrote that he 'was potentially writing'. Potentially modified the word 'writing' in your post, it did not describe what he was writing.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X It's kind of funny that Ron Paul was potentially writing about something like this back in 2005. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul282.html

you see how potentially is between 'was' and 'writing'? Its location in the middle of the verb causes it to modify the verb.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 yeah - that's what i wrote, but that's not what you originally wrote. You wrote that he 'was potentially writing'. Potentially modified the word 'writing' in your post, it did not describe what he was writing. you see how potentially is between 'was' and 'writing'? Its location in the middle of the verb causes it to modify the verb.

"potentially writing about something like this"

I like how you edited the syntax (by omitting part of the sentence) to make it sound different than what I was originally saying but again, is this even important? lol

Talk about a waste of time and energy.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X "potentially writing about something like this" I like how you edited the syntax (by omitting part of the sentence) to make it sound different than what I was originally saying but again, is this even important? lol Talk about a waste of time and energy.

I didn't edit anything.

Anyway, you said "was writing." "Was writing" describes the action of writing in the past. And, a person can not have done something potentially in the past. The possibility to which potentially refers has already played itself out and has been determined. It just makes no sense at all to say something potentially occurred, as in 'was potentially writing.' It isn't even correct to say 'potentially write' because the verb 'write' is decribing the current action of writing. If the action is currently happening, the possiblity of writing has already been determined. It would be correct, however, to say 'will potentially write.'

You're right, it's not important; however, I'm bored and you were previously caviling one of my posts about whether something was quoted.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 I didn't edit anything. Anyway, you said "was writing." "Was writing" describes the action of writing in the past. And, a person can not have done something potentially in the past. The possibility to which potentially refers has already played itself out and has been determined. It just makes no sense at all to say something potentially occurred, as in 'was potentially writing.' It isn't even correct to say 'potentially write' because the verb 'write' is decribing the current action of writing. If the action is currently happening, the possiblity of writing has already been determined. It would be correct, however, to say 'will potentially write.' You're right, it's not important; however, I'm bored and you were previously caviling one of my posts about whether something was quoted.

another example of mistakes trancer makes due to lack of education, tsk tsk.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN another example of mistakes trancer makes due to lack of education, tsk tsk.

which wouldn't be so bad if he wasn't incorrigible. I can't remember seeing a post in which he admitted an error (rather george bush like).

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 which wouldn't be so bad if he wasn't incorrigible. I can't remember seeing a post in which he admitted an error (rather george bush like).

ive been here a long time, and ive never seen it. he hasn't changed his opinion one iota. he has been soundly thrashed by lawyers and economists re law and economics, but he doesn't seem to notice/care. just copy-paste his next piece of "knowledge" without any reflection.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 I didn't edit anything. Anyway, you said "was writing." "Was writing" describes the action of writing in the past. And, a person can not have done something potentially in the past. The possibility to which potentially refers has already played itself out and has been determined. It just makes no sense at all to say something potentially occurred, as in 'was potentially writing.' It isn't even correct to say 'potentially write' because the verb 'write' is decribing the current action of writing. If the action is currently happening, the possiblity of writing has already been determined. It would be correct, however, to say 'will potentially write.' You're right, it's not important; however, I'm bored and you were previously caviling one of my posts about whether something was quoted.

Yesterday my friend was worrying about the possibility that martial law was going to be declared if the bailout vote didn't go through but thankfully that never happened.

It's weird that you're so eager to focus on the trivial while neglecting that which is truly important but then again my intuition did initially tell me that you were just another troll coming to infect this board so perhaps I should have just kept you on ignore.

To be honest, I'm starting to regret that I ever took you off of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Yesterday my friend was worrying about the possibility that martial law was going to be declared if the bailout vote didn't go through but thankfully that never happened. It's weird that you're so eager to focus on the trivial while neglecting that which is truly important but then again my intuition did initially tell me that you were just another troll coming to infect this board so perhaps I should have just kept you on ignore. To be honest, I'm starting to regret that I ever took you off of it.

...and the usual response to people that disagree with him. if there's one thing you can't take away from trancer, its his consistency!

My superior intellect recognizes that you possess an inferior intellect, therefore it is above me to even read your posts. I shall therefore stick my nose in the air and a finger in my arse every time that I see you have posted.

/Trancer

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.