View Story | 459 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
It mirrors both... down down DOWN
by kubla000 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:49:06 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
The entire US treasury, and trillions more that is "borrowed" is all in play for the bushite scum, their goal is to transfer as much of it as possible to their cronies- and just 312 days left to loot!
What's a bushite scum to do? Why loot twice as fast, there is still a little credit left in the USA, they will now try to get all of that!
1-20-09, that's the day we start cleaning up the bush mess, unless of course HRC gets her buddy McBush installed in the WH.
by MD patriot on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:34:31 PM PDT
to impeach. It would, at the very least, occupy the time Bush is using now to loot whatever is left of the treasury. Wall Street is crying wolf and Bush just pours more money on the fire.
Now, people had lost their fear. From that moment I knew we would win. - Oscar Olivera
by Josh Prophet on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:14:30 PM PDT
is sacking the bank vaults for his cronies. What sort of action are our leaders willing to take to stop the rampant piracy that's stealing us all blind? What does it take for them to acknowledge we are under financial and economic siege?
Whoa...too rich or big 'to be allowed fail' in what is supposed to be a 'free market'? See, there's a major clue. So it's 'a level playing field' for the market when the field angle is reset to allow as much available cash, even hundreds of billions, trillions even, are borrowed from our futures and personal wealth, to be funneled into crony hands as massive present value gains.
This is beyond corporate welfare, it's more than crony welfare, it's reverse transfer, i.e. theft, piracy and plunder of the treasuries of multiple nations and 99% of the people, by the top 1%.
It would appear when our 'biggest fans of the free market' Republicans were given free reign to enter our treasuries, and they brought their leaf blowers and supervacs along to make sure the to clean out the rest of our 99% class. Reverse Robin Hood ethics hard at work. This 1% seems to have adopted the pirate's ethic of "Take all ye can, and give nothin' back!" and they're over 3/4's done with 300 days to go.
My modest stack of $USD dollar bills barely buys 1/4th of gold and oil it did at the time W was elected. Think about this...it takes only 1/4 as much gold to equal the value of our homes as it did 8 years ago, for those among us who still have them.
Instead of our pension stocks and housing values also going up 4X, these seem to be teetering or already sliding at alarming rates. Who benefits from that kind of leverage? Jobs, salaries and benefits are noticably thinner now than 8 years ago. Where is W's deep concern and actions to restore the tremendous value stolen from the 99% of citizens?
The top 1% apparently have taken greater percentages of control of real assets and have magnified their net worth by factors, while 99% of us have seen it taken away, they're up 300%, we're holding 25% of what we had.
This is far worse than a home invasion or burglery, and yet we just tolerate it, numb, unbelieving, hoping for things to change.
It's hard to ignore the signs of depression written on the bank vault walls, along the streets in the tracts of housing for which no buyers can be found, and whatever savings you had in IRA or pension accounts, etc. being worth 1/4th of what it was 8 years ago. We've by the hundreds of millions been nearly cleaned out. And there's a few thousand uber-rich trying very hard to avoid being detected as the ones whose vaults are 300% fuller now.
Is it possible Ms. Pilosi is one of that priviledged top %1 who prefers that we not notice? Wait, wait, wait...we've got a blue-light special $600 check coming, again borrowed from our futures, but is it enough to keep the masses placated? What if the masses start to do the math?
When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!
by antirove on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:30:09 PM PDT
That's why he's trying to get us to buy crap to inject money back in, so they can get more loans from the European banks.
Perhaps he shouldn't of pissed of Europe so much.
; P I've been looking into the heads of these companies you should do the same.
The definition of insanity is voting the same way and expecting a different result. I'm talking to you FL,OH, KY, WV!
by Shhs on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:39:53 PM PDT
Ewww.
"I wouldn't trade one stupid decision / for another five years of life." -- LCD Soundsystem
by tomjones on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:45:36 PM PDT
"If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy." -teacherken
by offgrid on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:20:11 PM PDT
were President now. The same thing would have happened with Bear Sterns. A violent failure of the institution would do more harm than good, which is why the Fed and JP Morgan stepped in to make sure they could at least liquidate the company in an orderly fashion. It would be nice if we had people who actually presented a balanced case on economics/finance around here, instead of just playing to the popular notions of the people on DKos.
Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!
by Asak on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:37:07 PM PDT
been President since 2004. Clinton for instance would have been studying and listening and would have concluded that the real estate market was out of control years ago. And then he would have done a little proactive stuff. Bush doesn't do proactive, he only does preemptive!
by phild1976 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:54:24 PM PDT
Since they're not even in Chapter 11 yet, this is a premature Get Out of Hazard Free card.
OK, go on. Present a balanced case for how low the dollar needs to fall before the Fed stops buying bad debt. Or, put another way, how high does oil have to go by the end of the year? $150 a barrel? $200? $300? $500? At what point does the Fed underwriting start to do "more harm than good"?
-- Either get behind Obama 100% of GTFO of DailyKos.
by DemCurious on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:29:13 PM PDT
Yeah, on the one hand its a bailout, but on the other hand do we want a market panic? I would say a more stately progression to unwinding the leverage would be best.
The guilty won't be punished in this, just the unlucky when the demands for a scapegoat or two reach crescendo level. We're too short sighted and we've proven that by letting the situation develop in the first place.
by Stranded Wind on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:18:50 PM PDT
by DemCurious on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:21:12 PM PDT
A panic causes harm above and beyond the unwinding needed. I'd rather slide down a 20' rocky slope than fall 20' and land on a pile of rocks. One hurts a lot, the other could very well be fatal.
by Stranded Wind on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:50:42 PM PDT
They should be allowed to fail, plain and simple.
When the homeowner fails, he loses his house and ends up on the street.
When the banker fails, he ends up with billions of dollars handed to him by our government curtesy of the taxes paid by the now homeless taxpayer.
The citizen is destroyed. Big business is rescued.
Do we need further proof that our government represents big business rather than the people???
Is their any responsibility for destroying our economy? Shouldn't some of these responsible go to jail???
by Jagger on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:35:05 PM PDT
Why didn't you invest all your money in Bear Sterns then, since it's so obvious they end up with billions. I suppose the 47% loss you suffered today wouldn't really be a loss. I guess if you end up with 10 cents on the dollar for your investment you'd feel that was a great success, right?
by Asak on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:38:50 PM PDT
merit further discussion. My question: In theory, Bernanke doesn't answer to Bush - so how closely are his actions attributable to Bush? And, bad as Bush is, it makes no sense to charge him with failures that he's not responsible for. So, what aspects of this crisis is he really responsible for? I assume one aspect is a decrease in regulation of the banking industry - rather significant, in fact. Is Bush responsible for the housing bubble? Or was that Greenspan? Did Bush cause Greenspan's actions? Collusion? Or acting independently? Another point, though, is how are the execs at Bear Sterns making out - they may have lost a lot today, but in the grand scheme of things they're probably doing way better than any poor stockholder or person whose pension was invested in it. It seems these guys who hate government regulation and taxes are all too willing to get a bailout when they need it. They're probably still better off than 99.5% of the rest of us.
by RW on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:26:49 PM PDT
by DemCurious on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:34:28 PM PDT
I noticed they never updated it with arc's 19% approval.
When we become disenchanted with the purity of Sen. Obama, let's think of John Roberts and Sam Alito when we think of the alternative.
by Dave from Oregon on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:29:26 PM PDT
Need another 20 points down.
by Creosote on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:46:01 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 459 comments