Where Are They Now?

[Bobalouie 0]

Changing the subject will not excuse your lame attempt to point fingers. There are plenty of directions to point. The reasons are many. But IMO, the two biggest reason this happened was because people are greedy and the regulations that were in place to keep this from happening were removed. Greed took over and new and innovative ways were found to bleed us of every penny. Unfortunately for all, the path that was taken to accomplish this was very risky and when it collapsed, it did so in a very big way. It is sort of like running around for a few days writing checks on an empty account. It works for a little while but then it catches up to you. I can guarantee you that Uncle Sam will not be there to make deposits into your checking account because you wanted to get rich quick.

Can you tell us what regulations were removed? As I recall, the regulations put into effect in 1977 (CRA) and strengthend in 1995, then the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting requirements are what caused this mess. Looks like we have quite a few regs to me. The cause of this problem, while the intent was admirable (removing racisim from the banking industry), was government involvement in business that forced businesses to do risky, potentially unprofitable things in order to avoid government inditement.

Edited October 12, 2008 by Bobalouie

[Brad and Vika 129]

Changing the subject will not excuse your lame attempt to point fingers. There are plenty of directions to point. The reasons are many. But IMO, the two biggest reason this happened was because people are greedy and the regulations that were in place to keep this from happening were removed. Greed took over and new and innovative ways were found to bleed us of every penny. Unfortunately for all, the path that was taken to accomplish this was very risky and when it collapsed, it did so in a very big way. It is sort of like running around for a few days writing checks on an empty account. It works for a little while but then it catches up to you. I can guarantee you that Uncle Sam will not be there to make deposits into your checking account because you wanted to get rich quick.

Can you tell us what regulations were removed? As I recall, the regulations put into effect in 1977 (CRA) and strengthend in 1995, then the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting requirements are what caused this mess. Looks like we have quite a few regs to me. The cause of this problem, while the intent was admirable (removing racisim from the banking industry), was government involvement in business that forced businesses to do risky, potentially unprofitable things in order to avoid government inditement.

I agree, but I think NM is talking about the banking deregulation under Reagan that allowed for interstate branching and acquisition of banks. That was also the starting gun for brokerage houses, insurance companies, and investment banks to start behaving like banks, but without the regulation. The same environment, along with Carter's appointment of Paul Volker to the Fed Chair, also caused the tremendous economic growth that was cliamed by every single administration since. Again, I think that more regulation is not the answer here. Some smart regulation (an oxymoron) would help. The so-called bailout is not going to resolve anything, it will only lengthen the recovery process and the associated pain to the public.

[slim 1,530]

So is there reason to freak out about this "nationalization" or not, because the govt. has a pretty good stake in most "high-dollar" industries already.

[Brad and Vika 129]

So is there reason to freak out about this "nationalization" or not, because the govt. has a pretty good stake in most "high-dollar" industries already.

In my opinion, there is no reason to flip out. This is just more political posturing because the public is demanding that the government do something. The time to "fix" this problem through regulation is long past. Without any real concept of how to regulate exotic investment vehicles, there will now be a long period of tail chasing by politicians, then when things return to something like normal - a claim of victory by whomever is in charge. In eight or ten years, we will go through it all again. Government equity in big financial institutions will have a negative impact on lending standards, thereby harming healthy potential borrowers by depriving them of credit to fund sound business ventures. There will be no effect on the next wave of Wall Street geniuses that create and sell the next generation of unique, high return (until the meltdown) financial instruments. We will pay for those too.

[Danno 1,228]

OK dufflebag - try this on for size

Last night during the Presidential debate, John McCain, in an effort to justify continuing the war in Iraq, compared it to the Russian war with Afghanistan by stating that when the Afghans pushed the Russians out of Afghanistan, the US failed by not staying with the Afghans and thereby allowing the Taliban to move in. What the old geezer has forgotten is that we armed and aided the Taliban in their fight against the Russians. They were there during the war and they were there after the war. We knew it and we gave them support. Please reference the following Wiki:

Although there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war." Link

Guess who was in charge during this? Reagan! [/b] Link

For literally years now I have heard this charge about the US arming Bin Ladin back in the days when they were fighting off a soviet invasion.

I never have followed the logic of this point.

Of course we used (and supported) the Taliban to accomplish what we wanted carried out and as far as I know... it worked pretty good for us (and them).

Soviets were defeated and depleted

Of course any time we use a foreign

entity to carry out these actions there is always a chance at some point in the future, we might

not have the same common interest but that is the reality of life and war.

I for one would call arming the taliban (at that time) a great move, better that than send in our

advisers like we did in Nam' only to see that escalate. Any time we can arm another to accomplish his goals when they mirror ours, I am all for it.

In fact our military history is FULL of it, starting with the arming of Indians in a number our conflicts.

Lets suppose there were some tribes or groups running around in the Mountains of Pakistan who if armed would really cut into the Talibans ###. Is there anyone who would not agree to this?

Perhaps in 25 years this same group might be in our cross-hairs but we can't let this possiblity handcuff up today.

Anyway... Just my humble.

[slim 1,530]

So what does all this mumbo-jumbo mean for a check-to-check guy with "low average to bad" credit?

[slim 1,530]

For literally years now I have heard this charge about the US arming Bin Ladin back in the days when they were fighting off a soviet invasion.

I never have followed the logic of this point.

I'll throw another illogical point at you..... bin Ladin wasn't even mad at us until the early '90s and it had nothing to do with Afghanistan and only very little to do with Iraq.

[Danno 1,228]

For literally years now I have heard this charge about the US arming Bin Ladin back in the days when they were fighting off a soviet invasion.

I never have followed the logic of this point.

I'll throw another illogical point at you..... bin Ladin wasn't even mad at us until the early '90s and it had nothing to do with Afghanistan and only very little to do with Iraq.

Yeah I think he claims what pissed him off was the US setting up shop in his Holy land.

Thing is; we can't run foreign policy with a goal to, never piss off anyone.

Which leads to another point which gets repeated so often... therefor it must be logical. (because it's repeated so often)

*Iraq a sovereign country*

Don't you kinda tear-up your "I'm a sovereign country" card after you start a war by invading your neighbor then, after you get your ### kicked. (with the help of many other countries)

You retreat back to your country yet get to stay in power "under certain conditions".

when you don't abide by those conditions in the most gross way, are you really still a sovereign country?

I suppose a room full of Lawyers can kick the legal angle around endlessly, but was Iraq a sovereign country?.... like say Denmark?

Whether is was a "good idea" to take him out is a whole other issue but is anyone denying he diminished his *sovereign country* status when he lost the war?

[Brad and Vika 129]

So what does all this mumbo-jumbo mean for a check-to-check guy with "low average to bad" credit?

Stay the course for now. You are young enough that you should ignore all of it, so long as your job isn't in jeopardy. Within three weeks or so, there will be enough detail to start us all in the same direction again ( I hope). A year later things will be on track again like magic. The administration will claim credit, saying "we knew all along it would be ok".

Edited October 16, 2008 by Brad and Vika

[slim 1,530]

Yeah I think he claims what pissed him off was the US setting up shop in his Holy land.

Thing is; we can't run foreign policy with a goal to, never piss off anyone.

Which leads to another point which gets repeated so often... therefor it must be logical. (because it's repeated so often)

*Iraq a sovereign country*

Don't you kinda tear-up your "I'm a sovereign country" card after you start a war by invading your neighbor then, after you get your ### kicked. (with the help of many other countries)

You retreat back to your country yet get to stay in power "under certain conditions".

when you don't abide by those conditions in the most gross way, are you really still a sovereign country?

I suppose a room full of Lawyers can kick the legal angle around endlessly, but was Iraq a sovereign country?.... like say Denmark?

Whether is was a "good idea" to take him out is a whole other issue but is anyone denying he diminished his *sovereign country* status when he lost the war?

Iraq was still a sovereign country because the war was stopped short. Sure, there were lots and lots of restrictions placed on them, but they were still sovereign.

Stay the course for now. You are young enough that you should ignore all of it, so long as your job isn't in jeopardy. Within three weeks or so, there will be enough detail to start us all in the same direction again ( I hope). A year later things will be on track again like magic. The administration will claim credit, saying "we knew all along it would be ok".

That was exactly my plan. My job isn't in jeopardy, just the opposite in fact, but I may be leaving it behind because I'm at that point in my life where I don't want to work all the time just to keep my job. I want to work a straight 40 and that's it. I know it's not exactly the time to leave a "good paying" job behind, but when you're blue collar, what's the difference really?

[Ban Hammer 13,512]

I have seen so many people email me from Ukraine and Russia. So can it be that people think there is a disaster pending in Russia and Ukarine?

Or, could it be that women will naturally gravitate toward the richest men they can find?