Ugh, crud, you're right. So the mail is not offical, then? Does that mean I won't actually get my $850.000 back, which America swindled me out of and which the new administration was returning to me? :bigcry:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Printable View
Ugh, crud, you're right. So the mail is not offical, then? Does that mean I won't actually get my $850.000 back, which America swindled me out of and which the new administration was returning to me? :bigcry:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
"back"? Louis? :inquisitive:
(7.) ???Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
(8.) Profit!
Obama's approval rating is at an astonishing low. As for myself, Obama has completely grown on me. He is moderate, classy, and does what he said he would do. Although this very moderation and class means he too easily loses fights when the opponent is ready to turn it into a mud-wrestling match.
I hope Obama's second year will see Obama slam his fist on the table a bit more often.
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama
Ten-to-one in two months time we will see angry mobs in town halls screaming that Obama should leave the poor banks alone. No doubt holding signs saying 'Keep Washington out of the financial sector!!', replacing previous signs saying 'Keep your :daisy: government hands off my medicare!!'.
I would gives odds on for that my manQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Or you'll see people who know what they're talking about, like the Mayor of NYC, saying it's a bad idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...ppening-2010-1
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...453031712.htmlQuote:
We agree with President Obama that it is ludicrous that, a year after a financial crisis almost destroyed the US economy, regulators haven't changed a thing.
Tim Geithner's "Too Big To Fail" policy is firmly in place, and our financial institutions can do whatever they want again.
So we were relieved to hear that Obama is finally deciding to do something about this.
But here's the problem: His new proposal won't fix a thing.
Under Obama's proposal, "banks" will no longer be able to trade for their own accounts or own, sponsor, or invest in hedge funds. So if you want to trade for your own account or own, sponsor, or invest in hedge funds, then... just don't be a bank!
In the fall of 2008, Lehman Brothers wasn't a bank. Neither was Bear Stearns. Or Goldman, Morgan, or Merrill Lynch. Or Fannie or Freddie. Or AIG--remember AIG?
None of these firms were banks.
Under Obama's new proposal, all of these firms would have been able to trade for their own accounts and own, sponsor, or invest in hedge funds.
And excuse us if our memory's faulty, but weren't these non-bank firms, along with with other non-bank firms like the idiot mortgage lenders, the ones that got us into trouble in the first place?
In other words, Obama's wildly popular new plan still hasn't addressed the real problem, which is not "banks." It's Tim Geithner's "Too Big To Fail." Until we address that one--preferably by making it possible for ALL firms to fail without taking the system down with them--we won't have done a thing.
Or we can go on saying Hurrah! for populism. :rolleyes:Quote:
Hark back a few months to the shadow play of the Obama bank stress tests. Crediting themselves with mending the crisis, President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner ruled that banks were on a solid footing because private investors would provide fresh capital and banks would be free to book profits and earn their way out of trouble.
That was then. Today it's politically convenient to bash banks for the very same profits, and to punish the very same investors with a new Obama bank tax. First, the government coaxes banks into buying back the government's TARP stake (and therefore government's share of future earnings). Then it turns around and helps itself to a chunk of those earnings anyway.
...
Aside from slightly raising the banks' cost of uninsured borrowing, the new Obama tax would do nothing to reduce the well-founded expectation of their uninsured creditors that they will be bailed out next time the banks get in trouble. Meanwhile, the only lesson the shareholders who just recapitalized the banks at Washington's behest can possibly learn is the moral hazard of trusting Washington.
Let's hope the crisis is over. Let's hope the banks don't soon need fresh infusions of equity to deal with more bad loans. If investors didn't get the message before, they've got it now: There will be no upside allowed. Anytime the sector starts to show signs of recovery, Washington can swoop in and grab the profits as a "responsibility fee."
This may be politically expedient given populist blowback over bank bonuses, but it's not a step toward a competitive, responsible banking sector that takes appropriate risks without looking for government handouts or bailouts. On the contrary, it's a formula for turning the banks into what Fannie and Freddie have become: profitless channelers of taxpayer-guaranteed money into whatever loss-making loans politicians happen to want made. Compared to that, give us Goldman every time.
CR
I was about to post in UK election thread, but here seems more acutely appropriate.
Gordon Brown to follow Obama's lead. Considering London's key role in European financial market, this paves the way for Europe to follow too.
(Incidentally highlighting what I've been desperately trying to convince the British of: the UK's position is a pot of gold. Britain's double-bill as 51st and 27nd state greatly enhances its influence and power, instead of reducing its 'sovereignity', or being a black hole from which no money can return)
Go Limeys and Yanks! Rid the world of the excesses of neo-liberalism! :cheerleader:Quote:
Gordon Brown plans to exploit Barack Obama's surprise crackdown on Wall Street banks to step up Britain's campaign for a new global transaction tax on financial products.
The prime minister believes the dramatic US move to curb risky activities by major US banks indicates a new-found willingness on the part of Washington to contemplate radical reform of markets.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...in-tax-banking
In a not very surprising, but nonetheless disturbing manner, the City copy-pasted the response of Wall Street, fearing fo the loss of million pound jobs and excessive bonuses. Yes, lads, the party might be over soon, keep mewling:
Quote:
Lord Myners, the City minister, today played down the idea that Britain might follow Barack Obama's lead in introducing radical banking reforms. Myners told Reuters the UK had already taken measures to address the problems in its banking industry.
"President Obama came out with a solution to the idiosyncratic problems that he sees in the American banking system, which is around investment banking in particular," Myners said.
"It's worth remembering that proprietary trading, hedge funds, private equity, these were not at the heart of the difficulties that Northern Rock, or Royal Bank of Scotland or HBOS experienced." He added: "He's developing a solution to what he sees as the American issues; we've already taken the necessary action in the UK."
The guys in Brussels seem to be downplaying this though Louis just seen it on news there
'An optimist is the human personification of spring'. :smug:Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
shame you're not americian....................Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
................and again.
I think you would like Obama to be our Prime Minister though, Furunculus. In the whole context of situation.
I'd rather have Obama than Brown too, by a long shot. Still, at least Merkel is competent, even if I disagree with quite a few of her aims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
My President (OK, I didn't vote for him, but he has the job, and I am a Citizen) is no fool. I believe he is an astute politician, based on his years as a community organizer, and can accurately read the tea leaves left in the teacup of Massachusetts.
By Spring, Mr Geithner, and his "too big to fail" philosophy and policies, will be gone as Sec-Treasury. Mr. Emmanuel (ChStaff) will either leave to run for Chicago Mayor, or leave "to devote more time to family". Mr. Holder (Atty Gen) will accept a post at a prestigious University. Homeland Security will be helmed by someone else. Gates and Clinton will remain as SecDef and SecState.
In other words, I think he'll shake up his advisors, including folks who need Senate approval for their jobs. To the end that he re-works his focus, having been ill-advised in the recent past about what America wants and needs.
If he plays to the "needs", he'll be great. If he plays to the "wants", he'll get adulation for awhile - until he gets superceded by the "American Idol" contest.
I'm betting he goes for the needs. After a year in office, with the enormity of his decisions now settled on his shoulders, he knows he has about one thousand days remaining to either make his mark, or leave a skid-mark.
Good Luck to him, sez I. Trust your own instincts and conscience. Follow the Constitution, and plainly explain what you think we need to know.
1. Find binLaden.
2. Make him and his network no threat.
3. Separate banks (where ordinary citizens put their meager savings, and take out loans) from Investment Houses (market gamblers).
4. Get our money back (this year) from those we helped last year.
That ought to take up the agenda for the next 5 months. Do those, and America will follow you to hell and back, whether you're a one-shot wonder or 8-year Legacy.
Presuming:
1. Bin Laden isn't dead already, which he most likely is.
2. He isn't dead and his network is actually a major threat. Activity has been "very low" either because security services are good at their jobs or the threat is over-estimated.
3. That lobbyists and Fillibuster Republicans actually allow him to.
4. See Crazed_Rabbit, he attacked Obama for proposing such moves. Aka, Republicans won't allow it, so will the Lobbyists.
Unfortunately, KukriKhan, I doubt you will see the miracles you want, if the Republicans have their ways.
You must be sick, you are agreeing with me. :laugh4:Quote:
I'd rather have Obama than Brown too, by a long shot. Still, at least Merkel is competent, even if I disagree with quite a few of her aims.
I don't think thats possible for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Yeah, Bush Jr. broke it all, and it will most likely take a while for Obama to fix it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
No, I attacked Obama for proposing a tax that will get back TARP money from people who already paid and ignoring those who haven't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
:rolleyes:
CR
The WaPo editorial board confirms what I already knew. Specifically that the decision to indict the underwear bomber "was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous." :thumbsdown:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Finally, real change I can believe in. We are the haggis we've been waiting for.
Smuggled and bootlegged, it has been the cause of transatlantic tensions for more than two decades. But after 21 years in exile, the haggis is to be allowed back into the United States.
The "great chieftan o' the puddin-race" was one of earliest casualties of the BSE crisis of the 1980s-90s, banned on health grounds by the US authorities in 1989 because they feared its main ingredient ‑ minced sheep offal ‑ could prove lethal. [...]
For the past two decades, Americans of Scottish descent ‑ of whom there are at least 6 million ‑ have been forced to celebrate Burns' night without a true haggis, much to their distress.
There are stories of Scots smuggling in a haggis for their starving cousins, risking deportation in the process. Others are said to have secretly tried to create homemade, bootleg haggis, desperate to sample that particularly peppery concoction.
Was BSE ever actually a threat?
Nah, it was merely a conspiracy to destroy the British beef industry :book:
Uh-oh, I guess Obama is a false prophet after all. FDA sez no haggis for you!
Recently, several news articles have incorrectly stated that the U.S. will be relaxing or lifting its ban on Scottish haggis. At this time, haggis is still banned in the U.S. The APHIS rule covers all ruminant imports, which includes haggis. It is currently being reviewed to incorporate the current risk and latest science related to these regulations. There is no specific time frame for the completion of this review. Please check back with APHIS periodically for updates.
This is a good thing. Painting oneself blue is a sign of mad[cow]ness. That's why I was rooting for the evil stripmining marines.
I saw Enter the Haggis here in Philadelphia this past Saturday night. They haven't been banned...but they are Canadian, so I guess that is okay.
Lame speech. He looks weak and seems worried, but I missed the first half.
Interesting, I thought it was a superb speech; the best I'd heard in the last decade, if not longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
I usually like his speeches, this one rang hollow to me and was disappointing. I'll watch the beginning later. Also, did McDonnell call facebook "fistbook"?
Haven't seen it yet, but this comment on it made me guffaw:
Tax incentives, small-business veneration, glorification of the entrepreneur, chest-thumping on competition, and even a bit of nationalism. Obama articulates Republican policies better than Republicans do. Doesn't look sour and mean, or like he wants to bite somebody.
Obama knocked it out of the park with this one.
For you europeans, that means he hit a 6. :beam: :smash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus
I assume knocked it out of the park is an american phrase referring to when you in baseball make a home run...
But the explanation for europeans confused me, hit a 6?