|
Ok so the bailout was rejected, or whatever (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| 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 ed. 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
|
|
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| The House is voting. Looks like it will pass this time. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| And the market tanks anyway... |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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. ;) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Nice Fibonacci av! |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| 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. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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 |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| 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.
you see how potentially is between 'was' and 'writing'? Its location in the middle of the verb causes it to modify the verb. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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. :wtf: |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| 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. :wtf: |
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. |
|
|
|
|
