2009 Bank Failures

OBGibby said:
Please advise where I've equated President Obama with tyranny. You seem to have a persistent problem mischaracterizing my posts and the posts of others. Of course, why would I expect anything less from somebody who lauds communist Cuba and China. I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories about the previous administration and Iraq. You truly are a "useful idiot." Lenin, Stalin and Mao would be proud.
Click to expand...

Simple minded is the term that I've always thought of, but I do love "useful idiot" better. The token american the communists and dictators run out before the camera's to bad mouth America. :laugh:
 
phil said:
Yep. The Chinese have problems, but not being saddled with the poor leadership that we have had hasn't been one of them. You didn't really mention Tibet, and I would have actually listened to that.

Can't have what both ways? The Chinese use soft power to good effect. Our ideas of interference around the world, particularly in the failed GWOT, have beggared us and helped to make them more powerful. They are moving into an area of economic dominance around the world, using their productive capacity to move their agenda forward. Other than selling weapons, we've pretty much abandoned a lot of important programs, focussing instead on short term programs that don't pay off in the long run. Sending troops abroad is just too expensive. It costs one million dollars per soldier in Afghanistan for one year. Sending a military force that costs billions of dollars isn't the answer. A better answer would be to do as President Obama is now doing: using our soft power. It makes economic sense, doesn't it? It also saves lives.

No, I'm not saying that we need to give up our leadership in the world. President Obama is doing just that. We've had many years of people like Rumsfeld saying the following:

Keep elevating the threat"... "Talk about Somalia, the Philippines etc. Make the American people realise they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists." [53][54]”
As Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld was deliberate in crafting the public message from the Department of Defense. People will "rally" to the word "sacrifice," Rumsfeld noted after a meeting. "They are looking for leadership. Sacrifice = Victory." In May 2004, Rumsfeld considered whether to redefine the war on terrorism as a fight against "worldwide insurgency." He advised aides "to test what the results could be" if the war on terrorism were renamed.Rumsfeld also ordered specific public Pentagon attacks on and responses to US newspaper columns that reported the negative aspects of the war, which he often personally reviewed before they were sent.
In October 2003, Rumsfeld personally approved a secret Pentagon "roadmap" on public relations, calling for "boundaries" between information operations abroad and the news media at home, but providing for no such limits. The Roadmap advances a policy according to which as long as the US government does not intentionally target the American public, it does not matter that psychological operations, reach the American public. The Roadmap acknowledges that "information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience" -- but argues that "the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of USG [U.S. government] intent rather than information dissemination practices."

That projection of power, that “carrier battlegroup” you seem to dismiss out of hand so easily, strengthens our economic health, and those of the rest of the world.

Really? How? It doesn't strengthen anything. It spends a lot of money.



I think you and he have much in common. The only results from our invasion of Iraq have been negative. It was a naked act of aggression that the rest of the world noticed. To be honest, can you really say that the world is a safer place because of our involvement? Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda whatsoever. The Europeans have the right idea, like you said, even while selling their defense capabilities down the drain. At least their social policies are progressive.

There's a new phrase: the Terrorism-Industrial Complex, similar to Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex that has creeped into our vocabulary, and it's fitting. There's a huge industry in the US that is geared towards fighting a largely imaginary group of enemies. As Rumsfeld said:
Keep elevating the threat"... "Talk about Somalia, the Philippines etc. Make the American people realise they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists.

I see from many of your posts that you and the right seem to denounce President Obama for some sort of tyranny. Yet during the former administration, we had this statement from our own government, trying to shape public opinion. Outrageous in any other country. Similar to the Soviet Union. Yes, there are violent extremists around the world. Guess what? Some of them might have a GOOD REASON to be violent extremists in their country. WE don't need to get involved. Useful idiots? Yes, there are many useful idiots.

I'm not being leftist. I'm just exercising sound economic judgment.
Click to expand...


Please advise where I've equated President Obama with tyranny. You seem to have a persistent problem mischaracterizing my posts and the posts of others. Of course, why would I expect anything less from somebody who lauds communist Cuba and China. I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories about the previous administration and Iraq. You truly are a "useful idiot." Lenin, Stalin and Mao would be proud.
 
Yep. The Chinese have problems, but not being saddled with the poor leadership that we have had hasn't been one of them. You didn't really mention Tibet, and I would have actually listened to that.

Can't have what both ways? The Chinese use soft power to good effect. Our ideas of interference around the world, particularly in the failed GWOT, have beggared us and helped to make them more powerful. They are moving into an area of economic dominance around the world, using their productive capacity to move their agenda forward. Other than selling weapons, we've pretty much abandoned a lot of important programs, focussing instead on short term programs that don't pay off in the long run. Sending troops abroad is just too expensive. It costs one million dollars per soldier in Afghanistan for one year. Sending a military force that costs billions of dollars isn't the answer. A better answer would be to do as President Obama is now doing: using our soft power. It makes economic sense, doesn't it? It also saves lives.

No, I'm not saying that we need to give up our leadership in the world. President Obama is doing just that. We've had many years of people like Rumsfeld saying the following:

Keep elevating the threat"... "Talk about Somalia, the Philippines etc. Make the American people realise they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists." [53][54]”
As Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld was deliberate in crafting the public message from the Department of Defense. People will "rally" to the word "sacrifice," Rumsfeld noted after a meeting. "They are looking for leadership. Sacrifice = Victory." In May 2004, Rumsfeld considered whether to redefine the war on terrorism as a fight against "worldwide insurgency." He advised aides "to test what the results could be" if the war on terrorism were renamed.Rumsfeld also ordered specific public Pentagon attacks on and responses to US newspaper columns that reported the negative aspects of the war, which he often personally reviewed before they were sent.
In October 2003, Rumsfeld personally approved a secret Pentagon "roadmap" on public relations, calling for "boundaries" between information operations abroad and the news media at home, but providing for no such limits. The Roadmap advances a policy according to which as long as the US government does not intentionally target the American public, it does not matter that psychological operations, reach the American public. The Roadmap acknowledges that "information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience" -- but argues that "the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of USG [U.S. government] intent rather than information dissemination practices."

That projection of power, that “carrier battlegroup” you seem to dismiss out of hand so easily, strengthens our economic health, and those of the rest of the world.

Really? How? It doesn't strengthen anything. It spends a lot of money.

OBGibby said:
About that source, the ? CIA Factbook. A more careful analysis shows that unemployment in China, while listed at 4%, also includes a telling caveat: "note: official data for urban areas only; including migrants may boost total unemployment to 9%; substantial unemployment and underemployment in rural areas." One should also consider the source of most of the information, aka "national statistics," that comes out of China - the Chinese communist government. But, then again, some people will believe anything a commie says.

As far as your new, qualified assertion goes that China has a smaller percentage of people below the poverty line - what definition of "poverty" are you using? Comparing U.S. impoverished to Chinese impoverished is not even a close analogy.

“Their economic model seems to be on track”?!?!?!?!?! Useful idiots around the world rejoice at such comments. And to answer your next question - YES, COMMUNISM HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS FAILURE.

I find it telling that you next reference how the communist Chinese have moved "into spaces we've abandoned already." You move easily between damning American hegemony around the world in other posts, yet in this post you seem to lament our abandonment of countries around the world. You can't have it both ways.

So the U.S. is a “decaying and decrepit” country, huh? Tell us how you really feel. Ingrate comes to mind. See my earlier reference to “useful idiots.”

While your description of Chinese ‘soft-power’ diplomacy is fairly accurate, what you fail to realize is that if your characterization of China proves correct, wherein they become a rival power on all fronts, how do you think they will control their hegemony? Certainly not by soft-power. It is no mere coincidence that the world has not seen a world war in the past 65 years, or the world's economy has grown leaps and bounds, equating to unimaginable progress in the sciences and quality of life, or that hundreds of millions of people have thrown off the yoke of tyranny and tasted the fruits of freedom. Those things have happened, by and large, due to American hegemony and leadership.

That American hegemony is welcomed around the world, whether it be the Far East, Europe, the Middle East or Latin America, because the U.S. guarantees freedom and balances power. Something in the order of 90% of the world’s trade flows over the seas. And the U.S., for several decades, has been nearly alone in ensuring the world’s sea lanes operate safely. That projection of power, that “carrier battlegroup” you seem to dismiss out of hand so easily, strengthens our economic health, and those of the rest of the world. While the likes of Europe sold their defense capabilities down the drain in order to fund their socialistic domestic policies, we picked up the slack and the tab and guaranteed their safety and security. It’s the U.S. that answers the phone when the world calls 9-1-1. Your posts imply the U.S. should retreat from our position of power and denounce our leadership of the world. If not us, then who? That power doesn’t just dissipate into thin air. The world remains a dangerous place wherein everyone angles for power. To give ours up invites disaster and welcomes the likes of Chinese commies and their ilk to spread their failed ideology.
Click to expand...

I think you and he have much in common. The only results from our invasion of Iraq have been negative. It was a naked act of aggression that the rest of the world noticed. To be honest, can you really say that the world is a safer place because of our involvement? Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda whatsoever. The Europeans have the right idea, like you said, even while selling their defense capabilities down the drain. At least their social policies are progressive.

There's a new phrase: the Terrorism-Industrial Complex, similar to Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex that has creeped into our vocabulary, and it's fitting. There's a huge industry in the US that is geared towards fighting a largely imaginary group of enemies. As Rumsfeld said:
Keep elevating the threat"... "Talk about Somalia, the Philippines etc. Make the American people realise they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists.

I see from many of your posts that you and the right seem to denounce President Obama for some sort of tyranny. Yet during the former administration, we had this statement from our own government, trying to shape public opinion. Outrageous in any other country. Similar to the Soviet Union. Yes, there are violent extremists around the world. Guess what? Some of them might have a GOOD REASON to be violent extremists in their country. WE don't need to get involved. Useful idiots? Yes, there are many useful idiots.

I'm not being leftist. I'm just exercising sound economic judgment.
 
phil said:
This info shows the Chinese unemployment rate at 4%, as opposed to ours of over 10%. Their source book was the CIA factbook.

http://www.indexmundi.com/china/unemployment_rate.html

I have to qualify my answer. They have a smaller percentage of people below the poverty level in China, but they could have more people below their line. Nevertheless, with a 4% unemployment rate, and a shrinking population growth, their economic model seems to be on track.

Unlike ours. So, do we now think communism has been a tremendous failure? What planet do I live on? Well, I live in the decaying and decrepit US, a country that seems to be heading the way of the former Soviet Union in so many ways. Make no mistakes, the Chinese have made all the right moves, and when you go overseas, you notice how quickly they move into spaces that we've abandoned already.

Where we'd send a carrier battlegroup, they'd just send a small delegation. They're a lot smarter than we are. 10 plane tickets and a little cash get them a lot further.
Click to expand...


About that source, the CIA Factbook. A more careful analysis shows that unemployment in China, while listed at 4%, also includes a telling caveat: "note: official data for urban areas only; including migrants may boost total unemployment to 9%; substantial unemployment and underemployment in rural areas." One should also consider the source of most of the information, aka "national statistics," that comes out of China - the Chinese communist government. But, then again, some people will believe anything a commie says.

As far as your new, qualified assertion goes that China has a smaller percentage of people below the poverty line - what definition of "poverty" are you using? Comparing U.S. impoverished to Chinese impoverished is not even a close analogy.

“Their economic model seems to be on track”?!?!?!?!?! Useful idiots around the world rejoice at such comments. And to answer your next question - YES, COMMUNISM HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS FAILURE.

I find it telling that you next reference how the communist Chinese have moved "into spaces we've abandoned already." You move easily between damning American hegemony around the world in other posts, yet in this post you seem to lament our abandonment of countries around the world. You can't have it both ways.

So the U.S. is a “decaying and decrepit” country, huh? Tell us how you really feel. Ingrate comes to mind. See my earlier reference to “useful idiots.”

While your description of Chinese ‘soft-power’ diplomacy is fairly accurate, what you fail to realize is that if your characterization of China proves correct, wherein they become a rival power on all fronts, how do you think they will control their hegemony? Certainly not by soft-power. It is no mere coincidence that the world has not seen a world war in the past 65 years, or the world's economy has grown leaps and bounds, equating to unimaginable progress in the sciences and quality of life, or that hundreds of millions of people have thrown off the yoke of tyranny and tasted the fruits of freedom. Those things have happened, by and large, due to American hegemony and leadership.

That American hegemony is welcomed around the world, whether it be the Far East, Europe, the Middle East or Latin America, because the U.S. guarantees freedom and balances power. Something in the order of 90% of the world’s trade flows over the seas. And the U.S., for several decades, has been nearly alone in ensuring the world’s sea lanes operate safely. That projection of power, that “carrier battlegroup” you seem to dismiss out of hand so easily, strengthens our economic health, and those of the rest of the world. While the likes of Europe sold their defense capabilities down the drain in order to fund their socialistic domestic policies, we picked up the slack and the tab and guaranteed their safety and security. It’s the U.S. that answers the phone when the world calls 9-1-1. Your posts imply the U.S. should retreat from our position of power and denounce our leadership of the world. If not us, then who? That power doesn’t just dissipate into thin air. The world remains a dangerous place wherein everyone angles for power. To give ours up invites disaster and welcomes the likes of Chinese commies and their ilk to spread their failed ideology.
 
Yes. Helping our neighbors is important. We've already spent 700 BILLION dollars in Iraq, invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Do you think we should have just saved our dollars and maybe invested it into something useful? I certainly do.

At this point in history, we're spending as much as the rest of the world in defense spending......combined. We really really need to control wasteful spending.

So I completely agree with you.
 
Phil,

I just don't feel confident in our Federal politicians making the correct regulation. Not just now, but over the past 20 years. They cannot make due with 20% of the nation’s gross national product.

All we get from Libs is that we have to fund the LOP safety net.
All we get from the Cons is that we have to reduce taxes and starve the system.

Right now, I don't think the Federal taxes are unfair. However, Kalefornea just increase mine rather dramatically. I made tax management adjustments that zeroed out their best effort. Regretfully, that affected my Federal income tax as well – and, they did nothing to deserve reduced revenue from me (yet). However, I will do the same if my Federal taxes are ‘enhanced’. Didn't do so under BusHitler. And, I paid more under BusHitler than I did under Clinton - inflation adjusted.

And, I don't think CapNTrade and 'Single Plier Health Care' and eight or nine hundred billion in 'stimulus' bloat had good enough business plans to warrant investment from me.

If I thought that a tax increase were to be temporary and intended to guide us smartly through a tough period than I would simply pay. Kinda like that idea. Kinda helping my neighbor. I did a lot of that through charity this year. But I don’t like where last year’s bloat went – propping up banks, insurance companies, and to unsustainable government bloat.

If you want to invest in the Federal Gubmint mutual fund than don't itemize your tax return. It really is that simple. You can help pay for the programs you want. Nobody forces you to perform tax avoidance strategies.
 
That's nice to know. Unfortunately, it's not all about personal options, but about where this country is going, and what caused us to get here.

Not even close.
 
phil said:
Considering the crisis occurred largely as a result of financial deregulation, I take it all with a grain of salt. Yep, Robert Rubin probably deserves some of the blame, and the Clinton administration, but these large outlays that have happened began during the Bush administration. The Republican Revolution had over 14 years to solve the problem. I guess this just shows us how truly revolutionary they were.:laugh:

Because, we're back in the same place as when we started. Congress could have fixed the problem during those long years.
Click to expand...

Phil,

Over the past years I have had the opportunity to:
  1. Buy into the Tech boom - Bubble
  2. Buy into the Kalefornea real estate boom – Bubble
  3. Borrow up to 50% of the equity from my residence – Jingle Mail
  4. Simply pay more in income tax when the Nanny State cried - Stupid
  5. Refinance my house with an Alt-A loan, incorporate a variable rate annuity, and maximize my financial future with creative financing – Crash
Now, I kinda like to have the above options. It was nice to use a HEL (15% of my houses equity) to remodel a 1970’s dream into the modern millennium. It was nice to invest in a futures and options trading system for a while. It was nice to purchase a home in Kalefornea with a 5% down. It was nice to have a deferred income retirement fund to ‘supplement’ the incredible returns of my 12.4% investment in the Social Security lock box. And, for some folks it probably was smart to use a bit of creative financing.

Options are good.

And, I don’t remember anyone forcing me to make any of the above stupid moves.

I ain't back in the same place I was in 1994.

- Not - Even - Close - :)
 
nnuut said:
Was it this Guy? Winfried F. W. Bischoff
Mr. Bischoff has a lot to prove. His brief tenure as the chairman of Citigroup, which he joined in 2000, came to a humiliating end in January, when he was replaced by Richard D. Parsons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/business/global/13bischoff.html
Click to expand...

NNuut,

My second Haiku!!!

Before the 'Fixer' - Parsons
Citigroup tried Integrity Guy - Bischoff
Proceeded by The Insider - My Secret Guy:laugh:
by Kalefornea is Broke​

In the 90s, I kinda liked 'The Insider Guy'. He is smart and can get things done. I am, however, a bit concerned about the chap at Treasury right now:p

As of this fine morning, my opinion on 'The Secret' guy has changed a bit - after reading the last line on his Wikipedia entry. It not just anyone who makes the "10 most unethical people in business" list in MarketWatch. There are only 10 of them!!!:p
 
Considering the crisis occurred largely as a result of financial deregulation, I take it all with a grain of salt. Yep, Robert Rubin probably deserves some of the blame, and the Clinton administration, but these large outlays that have happened began during the Bush administration. The Republican Revolution had over 14 years to solve the problem. I guess this just shows us how truly revolutionary they were.:laugh:

Because, we're back in the same place as when we started. Congress could have fixed the problem during those long years.


Boghie said:
Phil,

Who was the Director and Senior Counselor (and for a short time, Chairman) of Citigroup when it blew up and ambled to the trough???

Can't seem to remember.
Some dude named Robert Rubin.

I
Just
Can't
Place
The
Name

Anyway, more than half of the TARP funds have been disbursed during the Presidency of President Obama. President Obama probably should cancel it, but he hasn't. Maybe he is still reviewing the options.:)
Click to expand...
 
phil said:
And all of these are a drop in the bucket compared to what the Wall Street banks received. Citigroup alone received 29 billion in guarantees.

What, pray tell, did the Republican Revolution bring us, except financial ruin? That's why we can't believe the incredible resistance to the current changes. They had their chance for a looooong time, and basically wrecked our country with 2 foreign wars, burgeoning debt and failing infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Phil,

Who was the Director and Senior Counselor (and for a short time, Chairman) of Citigroup when it blew up and ambled to the trough???

Can't seem to remember.
Some dude named Robert Rubin.

I
Just
Can't
Place
The
Name

Anyway, more than half of the TARP funds have been disbursed during the Presidency of President Obama. President Obama probably should cancel it, but he hasn't. Maybe he is still reviewing the options.:)
 
Amazing- they have the city built already.

Wonder what the place will be like 20 years from now. I bet it won't be empty then.
 
In the name of NAFTA, GATT and others we have made a gift of our Manufacturing Base to China and others.
Thanks Bill Clinton!!:sick:
 
I watched the video. Like I said, the Chinese are making all the right moves. Investment in their infrastructure like roads and the national railroad will also improve the quality of life for most of the Chinese over time, and improve their economy. While it points out that there's a lot of empty spaces in the buildings, at least they don't have the same meltdown that we're having now.

I have an idea. Maybe WE should be doing the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top