View Full Version : Lehman Chapter 11
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10437261/1/lehman-files-chapter-11.html?puc=_tscrss
Remember: Greed ... is Good.
BlenderWizard
09-15-2008, 04:40
This was also on USAToday.com. Frankly, I'm tired of these "news" sources that assume I know who the **** these companies are. I've never even heard of Lehman until now.
Except for this news, 80% of the country hasn't. We aren't in the right income bracket.
None of this stuff affects me directly either, but when
"The American financial system was shaken to its core on Sunday"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122145492097035549.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us_bu siness
I know what trickles down into the broader economy isn't going to be rain.
By the way, how do you like the low interest taxpayer subsidized auto industry loans that are being cooked up?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080912/pl_cq_politics/politics2948951
Michigan is a swing state so the illogic of it doesn't much matter. Both McCain and Obama are "for it."
Sarah Palin is on TV right now, saying Washington screwed up the financial system, so re-elect the Republicans. Never mind that it was Republicans that looked the other way as all of this developed.
It amazes me that politicians would make empty generalizations about who or what is responsible for a given economic situation and we should trust them because they know exactly what needs to be done to fix it. These types of statements are nothing more than fodder for a perceived political advantage.
Given the complexity of markets and economics, even noted economists who live/study/teach this stuff are unable to reliably predict over-the-horizon events and generally can't pinpoint with any certainty the genesis of a "crisis" until conducting some exhaustive study for months (or possibly even years) after the event.
Obama states the recent financial "crisis" is the Republican's fault and McCain says we need more regulation to avoid future occurrences. Has anyone considered maybe a big part of the problem is government thinking everything that happens needs a government fix? Bailout here, guarantee there. We learn not to repeat our mistakes when they are unpleasurable. How about letting the free markets be free and let people and businesses bear the results of their bad decisions.
I'm not sure if it's their arrogance, ignorance, or stupidity that leads politicians to believe we are the ones who are so ignorant or stupid to believe such simplistic rhetoric. Monday-morning quarterbacking may help further someone's political aspirations but it certainly doesn't do much to improve the situations on Wall Street or main street. Either way, I find the whole situation very troubling.
BLOW THEM ALL OUT
IIRC it was during the Clinton Administration in 1999 that some of the regulations in place since 1930 to prevent another financial collapse were done away with. This was during the "we don't need all these regulations" period that I'm sure started before he was elected, but it was on "his watch" so it's his fault.
This was during the "we don't need all these regulations" period that I'm sure started before he was elected, but it was on "his watch" so it's his fault.
I wonder how many voters, in the long run, will be dumb enough to fall for the claim that letting financiers do whatever the heck they want to is the fault of Democrats. Not many I'll wager. And I'd be :lol: at such an absurdity if it wasn't such a catastrophe for our nation's economy.
And it is on Bush's watch.
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/sep2008/pi20080914_124812.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
Or don't the Republicans claim Bush as one of their own any more? <_<
This started way before Bush, and as I said, before Clinton, altho he did sign off on some regulation dumping in 1999. There was a deregulation frenzy gripping Washington...
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/15/the-biggest-financial-story-of-the-past-50-years.aspx
It's good to see that the politicians - at least the ones that are vocal at the moment - are all in agreement that "too big to fail" has gone "too far."
COBRADOC
09-16-2008, 12:47
None of this stuff affects me directly either.... .
Were I you, I wouldn't be so quick to make such a statement, especially if you have any kind of employer sponsored retirement probram, or any of the various IRA programs.
Sarah Palin is on TV right now, saying Washington screwed up the financial system, so re-elect the Republicans. Never mind that it was Republicans that looked the other way as all of this developed.
Before you throw too many darts at the Republicans for the collapse of these major financial institutions, you need to do some study on the repeal of Glass-Steigal during the Clinton Administration (which by the way, McCain voted against the repeal), and then set in place new regulations that required mortgage companies to issue loans to people that couldn't afford them, all under the guise of "affordable low-income housing", which is politico-speak for welfare housing. Then do some checking up on the commentary of Robert Reich, former Sec. of Labor under Clinton. You may find that the whole foundation for this eventual collapse was laid by Clinton and his programs of social engineering.
While we are at it, take a look at who controlled FANNYMAY and FREDDIEMAC. They were (are) controlled by the Democrat party. And the Dems in congress have protected them for years and has refused to allow any reforms. Did you know that Joe Biden's son is a major lobbiest for FANNYMAY? No? And I bet you won't find that out on the media either.
Before you throw too many darts at the Republicans for the collapse of these major financial institutions, you need to do some study on the repeal of Glass-Steigal during the Clinton Administration (which by the way, McCain voted against the repeal), and then set in place new regulations that required mortgage companies to issue loans to people that couldn't afford them, all under the guise of "affordable low-income housing", which is politico-speak for welfare housing. Then do some checking up on the commentary of Robert Reich, former Sec. of Labor under Clinton. You may find that the whole foundation for this eventual collapse was laid by Clinton and his programs of social engineering.
While we are at it, take a look at who controlled FANNYMAY and FREDDIEMAC. They were (are) controlled by the Democrat party. And the Dems in congress have protected them for years and has refused to allow any reforms. Did you know that Joe Biden's son is a major lobbiest for FANNYMAY? No? And I bet you won't find that out on the media either.
Maybe he'll ignore this again while he looks it up...I'm glad you knew the rest of it, I sure didn't...
I wonder how many voters, in the long run, will be dumb enough to fall for the claim that letting financiers do whatever the heck they want to is the fault of Democrats. Not many I'll wager. And I'd be at such an absurdity if it wasn't such a catastrophe for our nation's economy.
Really? Here's your reading asignment for today.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/whose-policies-led-to-the-credit-crisis/
This might help clarify the issue for you too. Look who's #2 on the list, and the biggest recipient:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
BigOleSwingin`
09-16-2008, 15:06
Really? Here's your reading asignment for today.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/whose-policies-led-to-the-credit-crisis/
This might help clarify the issue for you too. Look who's #2 on the list, and the biggest recipient:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
What`s your point? Half of the names on that list are Republicans.
What`s your point? Half of the names on that list are Republicans.
My point is that the first article points out that the Democrats blocked Republican attempts 5 years ago to regulate Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac because they (Republicans) saw the writing on the wall. The list reinforces this, since Chris Dodd is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Obama is the Presidential nominee, not to mention the dollar amounts they've accepted are significantly higher than anyone else's. Trying to pin the banking collapse on Republicans is the biggest BS PR campaign in the world right now. Hell, the two former CEO's of Fanny Mae, who cooked the books to the tune of 6.7 billion so they could trigger their bonus thresholds, are economic advisors of the Obama campaign. An article in the Wall Street Journal today makes the case that the Obama campaign wanted a Wall Street scorched earth event so they could blame it on Republicans. How convenient...create the crisis and then point at your opponent.
BigOleSwingin`
09-16-2008, 18:35
My point is that the first article points out that the Democrats blocked Republican attempts 5 years ago to regulate Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac because they (Republicans) saw the writing on the wall. The list reinforces this, since Chris Dodd is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Obama is the Presidential nominee, not to mention the dollar amounts they've accepted are significantly higher than anyone else's. Trying to pin the banking collapse on Republicans is the biggest BS PR campaign in the world right now. Hell, the two former CEO's of Fanny Mae, who cooked the books to the tune of 6.7 billion so they could trigger their bonus thresholds, are economic advisors of the Obama campaign. An article in the Wall Street Journal today makes the case that the Obama campaign wanted a Wall Street scorched earth event so they could blame it on Republicans. How convenient...create the crisis and then point at your opponent.
I`d say the Reps were not really interested in regulating given the fact howmany of them were feeding off Fanny. The bottom line is corruption is not a thing of party affiliation and two wrongs do not make a right.
COBRADOC
09-16-2008, 18:44
I`d say the Reps were not really interested in regulating given the fact howmany of them were feeding off Fanny. The bottom line is corruption is not a thing of party affiliation and two wrongs do not make a right.
Swingin, you make a good point. Although most of the lobbying and under the table money from Fanny and Freddie went to the Democrats, I'm sure that quiet a few Republicans had their hands greased as well.
If Mc and Palin are electected, hopefully they will kick some arses and take some names in the process of making some major changes. But Obama and Biden (or as rumors have it today, possibly Hillay will be put in the second slot) you can bet your retirement probram that nothing will change.
BigOleSwingin`
09-16-2008, 20:24
Swingin, you make a good point. Although most of the lobbying and under the table money from Fanny and Freddie went to the Democrats, I'm sure that quiet a few Republicans had their hands greased as well.
If Mc and Palin are electected, hopefully they will kick some arses and take some names in the process of making some major changes. But Obama and Biden (or as rumors have it today, possibly Hillay will be put in the second slot) you can bet your retirement probram that nothing will change.
Doc don`t make the mistake and think that the Repunlicans are any better, corruption-wise. There`s tons of crap that you could post here about both parties. Someone will hold OBUMMMAH by the balls if he gets elected and someone will own McCain.
I was listening to the local public broadcasting station and some guy's been on there recounting a lot of developments leading up to the financial implosion. I didn't hear a single date prior to 2000, apart from basic economic history from WW2 onward.
I wonder how many voters, in the long run, will be dumb enough to fall for the claim that letting financiers do whatever the heck they want to is the fault of Democrats.
Most recent quarterly campaign donation report:
Wall Street, finance and investment donations:
Obama: $10 million
McCain: $7 million
As usual freesw is living in the fantasy world of the Democrats being the party of the people.
Maybe he'll ignore this again while he looks it up...I'm glad you knew the rest of it, I sure didn't...
I don't even know what the first part of that means.
Anyway, here's the name you need to consider in all this: PHIL GRAMM.
I was wrong about the gov't finally putting the brakes on the failed "too big to fail" philosophy.
Now they've gone and nationalized AIG. What the heck? :wacko:
As usual freesw is living in the fantasy world of the Democrats being the party of the people.
Neither are, not really, but McCain's the candidate that's completely under the sway of lobbyists and Bush operatives.
Wall Street corporations are like any other, they hedge their bets. I'm not comfortable with any candidate accepting corporate contributions, but there's no other way to run a campaign in today's corrupt environment. That's part of what the politician formerly known as the maverick John McCain was trying to fix. Now, the new John McCain is actually managed by lobbyists:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101131_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091603732.html?nav=rss_politics
On a related note, Phil Gramm is in the campaign, then he disappears, in, disappeared, in ... he's John McCain's economic advisor, except on days when there's new bad economic news. McCain probably intends to make him Treasury Secretary if he wins.
1999? Phil Gramm was there:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html
I've already acknowledged a bi-partisan preoccupation with deregulation over the years. I wouldn't get too comfy repeatedly referring to the Other party in any apparent effort to point a finger of blame, guys. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are elbow deep in Banking Industry campaign contributions, no matter who shows the most when it's all totaled up. BO and JM are near the top of that list.
The banking industry CEOs bloated their net worths at our expense, with the blessings of a too-trusting government. We've been royally screwed by them all, and we bought and will pay dearly for the privilege. Now we get to see who throws their top campaign contributors in the banking industry under the bus the fastest.
I know. Joe Biden's apparently got some sort of connection with MBNA, I think it is. Some say that may have influenced his vote on personal bankruptcy legislation a few years back. It's true that if you want to vote for a truly clean presidential candidate, it has to be third party.
You already know what my conclusion is, once the pros and cons are totaled for each side, so I won't bother rehashing that.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.