For all those who doubt me..

[supra5677]

Since I joined this board during the primary I have been 100% RIGHT on every political move and outcome. Since I have been right every single time I think its time to stop calling me a conspiracy theorist. The only difference is that I use foreign media sources instead of ours. What goes on in the rest of the world will eventually catch up to our pathetic non reality media.

For example:

1.I predicted George Soros bought off the Democratic Primary and the RBC through proxies Soros, Pelosi, and Clyburne.
2. I predicted the floor fight would be stopped and it was with the Death of Bill Gwatney
3. I predicted Hillary would do a calculated retreat, becoming Secretary of State.

Now I do need instructions to provide links to you all so you can get AHEAD OF THE MEDIA instead of always being surprised. AIG is nothing most of the money went to bailout FOREIGN institutions. Obama is following in lock step the policies of Herbert Hoover with the bailout policy. Hillary should quit now and jump off the sinking ship. Then we can have her in 2012.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Since I joined this board during the primary I have been 100% RIGHT on every political move and outcome. Since I have been right every single time I think its time to stop calling me a conspiracy theorist. The only difference is that I use foreign media sources instead of ours. What goes on in the rest of the world will eventually catch up to our pathetic non reality media.

For example:

1.I predicted George Soros bought off the Democratic Primary and the RBC through proxies Soros, Pelosi, and Clyburne.
2. I predicted the floor fight would be stopped and it was with the Death of Bill Gwatney
3. I predicted Hillary would do a calculated retreat, becoming Secretary of State.

Now I do need instructions to provide links to you all so you can get AHEAD OF THE MEDIA instead of always being surprised. AIG is nothing most of the money went to bailout FOREIGN institutions. Obama is following in lock step the policies of Herbert Hoover with the bailout policy. Hillary should quit now and jump off the sinking ship. Then we can have her in 2012.


You need to read history if you think Obama is following Hoover's policies. Hoover was an individualist. He did not believe it was the government's job to assist the middle class. He did not believe it was the government's job to create jobs.

The only thing Obama and Hoover have in common is they both want to raise taxes on the rich. But Hoover raised them at a much more extreme rate. Obama is simply moving them back to a more sensible rate, back to where they were in the Clinton years, which were our nation's longest prosperity period. So that's a bit of a stretch to claim Obama and Hoover have the same policies.

Hoover did several things wrong that Obama would never do.

1. He had the fed decrease the money supply by 30%. This caused massive deflation and increased prices nationwide. This is not being done currently. Actually the fed is doing the opposite and trying to inflate the money supply to prevent deflation and to encourage foreign investment as well as easing the suffering of banks and encouraging the credit market to get moving again.

2. He increased tariff taxes which encouraged other countries to do the same against us. This made foreign made products extremely expensive and decreased the demand for our products in other countries. Obama has made no announced plans of doing this currently.

3. He refused to offer welfare programs to middle class citizens who were losing their jobs and their homes. Eventually too many people became homeless and not enough people were buying products and it made the economy even worse. It's clear this is not Obama's position at all.

[Ikasu]

Will Obama be reelected? Tell us with your crystal ball.

Links?

[Ikasu]

You need to read history if you think Obama is following Hoover's policies. Hoover was an individualist. He did not believe it was the government's job to assist the middle class. He did not believe it was the government's job to create jobs.

The only thing Obama and Hoover have in common is they both want to raise taxes on the rich. But Hoover raised them at a much more extreme rate. Obama is simply moving them back to a more sensible rate, back to where they were in the Clinton years, which were our nation's longest prosperity period. So that's a bit of a stretch to claim Obama and Hoover have the same policies.

Hoover did several things wrong that Obama would never do.

1. He had the fed decrease the money supply by 30%. This caused massive deflation and increased prices nationwide. This is not being done currently. Actually the fed is doing the opposite and trying to inflate the money supply to prevent deflation and to encourage foreign investment as well as easing the suffering of banks and encouraging the credit market to get moving again.

2. He increased tariff taxes which encouraged other countries to do the same against us. This made foreign made products extremely expensive and decreased the demand for our products in other countries. Obama has made no announced plans of doing this currently.

3. He refused to offer welfare programs to middle class citizens who were losing their jobs and their homes. Eventually too many people became homeless and not enough people were buying products and it made the economy even worse. It's clear this is not Obama's position at all.

Supra is referring to the time period between 1931 and 1933, where Hoover bailed out failed banks in the same fashion Obama is doing right now. If you don't deal with the banks properly, as many economists warn, it will ruin the economy. While Obama's social programs are promising, his treasury department's banking plans are looking like Hoover, which is very scary.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Supra is referring to the time period between 1931 and 1933, where Hoover bailed out failed banks in the same fashion Obama is doing right now. If you don't deal with the banks properly, as many economists warn, it will ruin the economy. While Obama's social programs are promising, his treasury department's banking plans are looking like Hoover, which is very scary.

Part of Hoover's banking policy was as I said, to decrease the money supply. His response to a credit crisis was to raise interest rates. This made it even harder to get a loan. That's retarded. Obama and the fed are doing exactly the opposite. They are pumping money into the economy to make it easier for the banks to loan money and encourage the financial markets to reboot themselves.

[Jobu86]

Since I joined this board during the primary I have been 100% RIGHT on every political move and outcome. Since I have been right every single time I think its time to stop calling me a conspiracy theorist. The only difference is that I use foreign media sources instead of ours. What goes on in the rest of the world will eventually catch up to our pathetic non reality media.

For example:

1.I predicted George Soros bought off the Democratic Primary and the RBC through proxies Soros, Pelosi, and Clyburne.
2. I predicted the floor fight would be stopped and it was with the Death of Bill Gwatney
3. I predicted Hillary would do a calculated retreat, becoming Secretary of State.

Now I do need instructions to provide links to you all so you can get AHEAD OF THE MEDIA instead of always being surprised. AIG is nothing most of the money went to bailout FOREIGN institutions. Obama is following in lock step the policies of Herbert Hoover with the bailout policy. Hillary should quit now and jump off the sinking ship. Then we can have her in 2012.

4. You said McCain suspending his campaign was genius and would not backfire.

[cinnamongirl]

Since I joined this board during the primary I have been 100% RIGHT on every political move and outcome. Since I have been right every single time I think its time to stop calling me a conspiracy theorist. The only difference is that I use foreign media sources instead of ours. What goes on in the rest of the world will eventually catch up to our pathetic non reality media.

For example:

1.I predicted George Soros bought off the Democratic Primary and the RBC through proxies Soros, Pelosi, and Clyburne.
2. I predicted the floor fight would be stopped and it was with the Death of Bill Gwatney
3. I predicted Hillary would do a calculated retreat, becoming Secretary of State.

Now I do need instructions to provide links to you all so you can get AHEAD OF THE MEDIA instead of always being surprised. AIG is nothing most of the money went to bailout FOREIGN institutions. Obama is following in lock step the policies of Herbert Hoover with the bailout policy. Hillary should quit now and jump off the sinking ship. Then we can have her in 2012.

You predicted generalities which haven't been proven. Where's the proof about Soros, outside of a few hazy conspiracy theories? Where's the direct connection between the death of Bill Gwatney and the floor fight? I just want to see the hard evidence you have to back these up.

Also, if you could provide the direct forum link where you predict Hillary as Secretary of State, that would be peachy--'cause I tried searching forum archives, and couldn't find it anywhere.

[Ikasu]

Part of Hoover's banking policy was as I said, to decrease the money supply. His response to a credit crisis was to raise interest rates. This made it even harder to get a loan. That's retarded. Obama and the fed are doing exactly the opposite. They are pumping money into the economy to make it easier for the banks to loan money and encourage the financial markets to reboot themselves.

At this point, you can't trick to market to reboot itself. They made fundamentally bad investments. Geithner's plan is a joke, it's identical to the Bush/Paulson plan. If Bush was still in power, his banking plan would be the same as Obama. Pump trillions into the banks hoping to jumpstart to the economy. I don't know why people expected change. Obama chose financial insiders who devised plans to give money back to their pals on Wall Street and Obama's campaign contributors. All Obama had to do was talk FDR, the New Deal, and 20% unemployment to allow massive bailout plans that are nothing like FDR to pass through.

[Wyoming Dem]

Bri...don't let them run you off. We have all missed you and I know that you have been a very avid follower of the economy. And although I may not understand most of what LaRouche says and disagreee with a lot of it, he...just like anyone else has some valid points. Just wanted you to know we miss you!

[supra5677]

Toxic Asset Plan Foresees Big Subsidies for Investors

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS, ERIC DASH and GRAHAM BOWLEY
Published: March 20, 2009


WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department is expected to unveil early next week its long-delayed plan to buy as much as $1 trillion in troubled mortgages and related assets from financial institutions, according to people close to the talks.

The plan is likely to offer generous subsidies, in the form of low-interest loans, to coax investors to form partnerships with the government to buy toxic assets from banks.

To help protect taxpayers, who would pay for the bulk of the purchases, the plan calls for auctioning assets to the highest bidders.

The uproar over the American International Group’s bonuses has not stopped the Obama administration from plowing ahead. The plan is not expected to impose restrictions on the executive pay of private investors or fund managers who participate.

The three-pronged approach is perhaps the most central component of President Obama’s plan to rescue the nation’s banking system from the money-losing assets weighing down bank balance sheets, crippling their ability to make new loans and deepening the recession.

Industry analysts estimate that the nation’s banks are holding at least $2 trillion in troubled assets, mostly residential and commercial mortgages.

The plan to be announced next week involves three separate approaches. In one, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will set up special-purpose investment partnerships and lend about 85 percent of the money that those partnerships will need to buy up troubled assets that banks want to sell.

In the second, the Treasury will hire four or five investment management firms, matching the private money that each of the firms puts up on a dollar-for-dollar basis with government money.

In the third piece, the Treasury plans to expand lending through the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, a joint venture with the Federal Reserve.

The goal of the plan is to leverage the dwindling resources of the Treasury Department’s bailout program with money from private investors to buy up as many of those toxic assets as possible and free the banks to resume more normal lending.

But the details have been treacherously difficult, politically and financially, and some of the big decisions are the same as those that bedeviled the Treasury Department under President George W. Bush last year.

Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, provoked scathing criticism from investors in February by announcing the broad outlines of the plan without addressing the tough questions, like how the government planned to share the risk with investors or arrive at a fair price for the assets that would neither cheat taxpayers nor harm the banks.

Although the details of the F.D.I.C. part were still being completed on Friday, it is expected that the government will provide the overwhelming bulk of the money — possibly more than 95 percent — through loans or direct investments of taxpayer money.

The hope is that such a generous taxpayer subsidy will attract private investors into the market and accelerate the recovery of the country’s banks.

The key protection for taxpayers, according to people briefed on the plan, is that the private investors will bid in auctions against each other for the assets. As a result, administration officials contend, the government will be buying the troubled loans of the banks at a deep discount to their original face value.

Because the government can hold those mortgages as long as it wants, officials are betting the government will be repaid and that taxpayers may even earn a profit if the market value of the loans climbs in the years to come.

To entice private investors like hedge funds and private equity firms to take part, the F.D.I.C. will provide nonrecourse loans — that is, loans that are secured only by the value of the mortgage assets being bought — worth up to 85 percent of the value of a portfolio of troubled assets.

The remaining 15 percent will come from the government and the private investors. The Treasury would put up as much as 80 percent of that, while private investors would put up as little as 20 percent of the money, according to industry officials. Private investors, then, would be contributing as little as 3 percent of the equity, and the government as much as 97 percent.

The government would receive interest payments on the money it lent to a partnership and it would share profits and losses on the equity portion of the investment with the private investors.

Ever since last fall, industry analysts and policy makers in Washington have argued that the banking system’s biggest problem was the huge pile of troubled mortgages and other loans on bank balance sheets.

[Ikasu]

Can you post a link? Unless this is from an email.

[supra5677]

Mccain lost the election in one moment. When he suspended his campaign to back the bailout! He was a freakin idiot. I even talked to one of his strategist about this. Had Mccain went against the bailout he would have one. He kissed the ass of Wall St. just like Obama. We should have had Hillary. The goal for everyone on this blog should be: Get Hillary to quit a.s.a.p. She needs to distance herself from Obama's empty suit.

supra

[supra5677]

Hoover didn't decrease the money supply the FED DID! They are two different institutions! Jesus Christ.

[Jobu86]

Mccain lost the election in one moment. When he suspended his campaign to back the bailout! He was a freakin idiot. I even talked to one of his strategist about this. Had Mccain went against the bailout he would have one. He kissed the ass of Wall St. just like Obama. We should have had Hillary. The goal for everyone on this blog should be: Get Hillary to quit a.s.a.p. She needs to distance herself from Obama's empty suit.

supra

This isn't a blog, it's a forum, and its goal is to bring different opinions together for discussion.

[musgrrl]

Now I do need instructions to provide links to you all so you can get AHEAD OF THE MEDIA instead of always being surprised.

To post a link, just copy the link from the address window in the browser and then paste it in the text box when replying to a thread, just like you do text. There's no special instructions.

[Jester]

To post a link, just copy the link from the address window in the browser and then paste it in the text box when replying to a thread, just like you do text. There's no special instructions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/business/21bank.html?hp

His source said Bloomberg, but this is the same story with the same authors printed elsewhere. He should have provided a link, but don't act like it is difficult to find an article using Google news if you have the article reprinted before you.

[Brooke]

This isn't a blog, it's a forum, and its goal is to bring different opinions together for discussion.

Thank you!!!

[TheTaoOfBill]

Mccain lost the election in one moment. When he suspended his campaign to back the bailout! He was a freakin idiot. I even talked to one of his strategist about this. Had Mccain went against the bailout he would have one. He kissed the ass of Wall St. just like Obama. We should have had Hillary. The goal for everyone on this blog should be: Get Hillary to quit a.s.a.p. She needs to distance herself from Obama's empty suit.

supra
You don't think Hillary would have supported the bailout?

Funny because she voted for it.

[Ikasu]

You don't think Hillary would have supported the bailout?

Funny because she voted for it.

You do this a lot. Bringing up Hillary when you can't effectively defend Obama isn't a good argument.

[OzDemocrat]

I think pointing out when a line of attack against Obama's policies is equivalent to the same on Hillary is actually a very important point. Much of what is said (by everyone) is clearly inspired by personal preferences or grievances, exposing these help us all better understand those we talk about and ourselves.

[Ikasu]

I think pointing out when a line of attack against Obama's policies is equivalent to the same on Hillary is actually a very important point. Much of what is said (by everyone) is clearly inspired by personal preferences or grievances, exposing these help us all better understand those we talk about and ourselves.

I don't think it's a good point at all. It's just a distraction. If Hillary were making the same decisions, I'd say the same thing. We have no idea of knowing this since Obama is the president, which is why the argument is silly.

There are legitimate arguments against Obama that are worth mentioning. It has nothing to do with personal grievances.

[Jester]

I think pointing out when a line of attack against Obama's policies is equivalent to the same on Hillary is actually a very important point. Much of what is said (by everyone) is clearly inspired by personal preferences or grievances, exposing these help us all better understand those we talk about and ourselves.

Now this isn't an attack on you personally Oz, but when Obama is brought up in a thread that doesn't start out with Obama as the object, Obama supporters are quick to chastise. And that is even more pathetic because Obama is the current President. He is the poster child for comparison. Just one example:

http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?p=562697#post562655
“Though I should have figured it wouldn't take long til Obama was brought into this somehow.”

But I'm not sure how me thinking about "would Hillary do it" has any bearing on my decision. I don't listen to Hillary to decide where I stand on an issue. Just like I wouldn't change my mind if I found out Bush shared one of my positions.

[Amy Dugan]

You predicted generalities which haven't been proven. Where's the proof about Soros, outside of a few hazy conspiracy theories? Where's the direct connection between the death of Bill Gwatney and the floor fight? I just want to see the hard evidence you have to back these up.

Also, if you could provide the direct forum link where you predict Hillary as Secretary of State, that would be peachy--'cause I tried searching forum archives, and couldn't find it anywhere.

some who were in the campaign fight and interacted with highups in her campaign know supra is not full of shit

[Jester]

You don't think Hillary would have supported the bailout?

Funny because she voted for it.

My problem has never been the bailout itself. The original TARP was the right thing to do. The problem was not the main point, but the details. I actually thought McCain suspending his campaign was the right thing to do. I think all that has happened after that day supports what he did. The Republican House wanted more oversight. Those saying "do nothing" were very few.

This first problem was granting $700 billion when it is now clear half of that was needed immediately.

The second problem was the lack of accountability. This is the toughest point because I think making every detail to the public is counterproductive. A big part of Bear Sterns was the perception of capital shortfall, which created a stock sell off, creating the actual capital shortfall.

The third and easiest problem was the BS that got thrown on top of the EMERGENCY BILL. That is when McCain failed. At that point, a united front would have remedied that nonsense. It is sad that our Congressmen seem to vote on huge $, important legislation with what seems to be their most important worry ... what's my vig? (Always Sunny in Philadelphia reference - great show). The stand seems to not be "I don't think this legislation is right, we need to fix it." but instead "I don't think this legislation is right, I need a virtual bribe to vote for it."

The TARP of last year was the only thing Bernanke could cite as having an actual positive effect on the economic downturn.

[TheTaoOfBill]

You do this a lot. Bringing up Hillary when you can't effectively defend Obama isn't a good argument.

Supra said he thought McCain should have taken a stand against the bailout. He then said he kissed wall streets ass just like Obama (referring to Obama and McCain both supporting the bailout)

He then said we should have had Hillary.

I did not bring up Hillary. He brought up Hillary. He brought it up in a context as if to say Hillary would not have supported the bailout. Even though she did support the bailout.

Personally I think this was a good move for all 3 candidates. But to suggest Hillary would have done things differently on this issue is ludicrous. She supported everything Obama did. She even supported the stimulus bill. Her husband endorsed the stimulus bill and said he would be doing the same exact thing if he were still president.

I remind you again. I didn't bring up Hillary. He did. And I am sick to death of people bringing up Hillary as if she's the Anti-Obama. They are both democrats. They both have the same stances on the 95% of the issues. You can be rest assured Hillary would have passed the same exact stimulus bill Obama did because it would have been written by the same congress. You can rest assured that Hillary would be finding a way to help bad mortgage owners pay off their debts just like Obama is. And you can rest assure the deficit would be skyrocketing under Hillary just like it is under Obama. Because they have virtually the same economic opinions and would surround themselves with very similar economic minds. That's why they are both democrats.

[cinnamongirl]

some who were in the campaign fight and interacted with highups in her campaign know supra is not full of shit

But can any of you prove it? Throwing out generalities that reek of conspiracy theories, without airtight evidence beyond "if you were here, you'd know" doesn't help anyone. And it certainly doesn't help Hillary's chances in 2016, to have her supporters bandying stuff like this without backing it up.

[OzDemocrat]

I don't think it's a good point at all. It's just a distraction. If Hillary were making the same decisions, I'd say the same thing. We have no idea of knowing this since Obama is the president, which is why the argument is silly. With reference to what supra and Tao were discussing, Obama wasnt president at the time, and Hillary was making the same decisions. That was Tao's point.
There are legitimate arguments against Obama that are worth mentioning. It has nothing to do with personal grievances.Of course there are. And the bank bailout deserves intense scrutiny. But the point of note is that Obama, McCain, and Hillary all voted the same way - hence using candidates final position on the bailout to support conclusions that two of the candidates are flawed yet the third is not, is clearly not a rational flow of logic.

[Jobu86]

Now this isn't an attack on you personally Oz, but when Obama is brought up in a thread that doesn't start out with Obama as the object, Obama supporters are quick to chastise. And that is even more pathetic because Obama is the current President. He is the poster child for comparison.

Pathetic? We chastise because some people always try to link anything negative to Obama (even if he is completely not involved), and do anything they can to avoid linking him to anything positive. It shows an obvious prejudice and that's what's pathetic. But sure, call what I said pathetic (if was only a remark at the end of my post anyways).

[Jester]

Pathetic? We chastise because some people always try to link anything negative to Obama (even if he is completely not involved), and do anything they can to avoid linking him to anything positive. It shows an obvious prejudice and that's what's pathetic. But sure, call what I said pathetic (if was only a remark at the end of my post anyways).

Yes the rest of your post preceding that comment was an outright attack on the Palin's daughter. Prejudice indeed. And now you've made the point on this thread as well.

[CGP]

Perhaps this thread should get back to discussing the original poster's comments...rather than re-hashing the same old battle...

[Jester]

And as far as now pretending that everybody else is wearing the tin foil hat ... If they had a demographic for that, it would have been Obama's biggest voting bloc. The early attacks on Hillary were Bush-lite (the Bush that was going to declare martial law and declare himself king), Harry ahd Louise destroyer, nuclear warmonger, Vince Foster killer, Wal-Mart corporate fat cat, etc, etc.

And if you watch Obama on 60 minutes tonight, he talked about how hard it was to get people to serve due to the public scrutiny. This from a guy that was all about "what the government is hiding from you." And from a VP that beamed with pride as he talked about how he changed the whole confirmation process by going after the personal backdrop of people as opposed to whether or not they were qualified. The kings of the litmus test are now complaining about the pH balance.

Karma's a bitch, ain't it.

[Jobu86]

Yes the rest of your post preceding that comment was an outright attack on the Palin's daughter. Prejudice indeed. And now you've made the point on this thread as well.

Here are my entire posts in that thread:

Who didn't see this coming? And not because of anything against those two. I mean, who hasn't fallen madly in love at like 18 and thought you'd be together forever? Poor kids, so much pressure got put on them. I hope all the rumors floating about aren't true, they're pretty nasty towards Bristol (I don't think they are true, but who knows).

But come on, tattooing her name on your finger?! Rookie move!

Jesus Christ. It's a joke, relax. Did you read the rest of my post? I felt sorry for them, and never felt attacks on them in the election were appropriate.

Though I should have figured it wouldn't take long til Obama was brought into this somehow.

Now how exactly is this an outright attack on Palin's daughter? I didn't attack Bristol at ALL. I made one joke about her Fiancee's tattoo, but please tell me how I attacked her, or ever have.

[CGP]

Perhaps this thread should get back to discussing the original poster's comments...rather than re-hashing the same old battle...

Again.

(or start a new thread to focus on the disagreement)

[Jobu86]

Again.

(or start a new thread to focus on the disagreement)

Sorry, but Jester used an old post of mine to further his point, then said I was attacking Bristol. I'm going to defend myself in the thread that takes place in. But if anyone wants to get back to discussing the original post, I won't get in the way.

[agatha]

The only thing Obama and Hoover have in common is they both want to raise taxes on the rich... Obama is simply moving them back to a more sensible rate, back to where they were in the Clinton years...


Obama wants to REMOVE the cap on Social Security taxes!!! I don't consider people making just over $90,000 a year rich! This whole "Obama will only raise taxes on the rich" stuff is a bunch of outright lies!!! :mad:

[Brooke]

Btw, supra, if you are so determined to have Hillary quit her job as S.O.S., write her a letter, or call the State Department. But don't come on here and tell us that this should be the focus of this forum when the focus of this forum is right up at the top of the page and the stickies Murray put up. This is his forum and he will decide the direction it should go in.

If you are so passionate about it, start your own forum to get her to quit. Because most of here think she's doing a fabulous job, she's changing the world and being loved far and wide for it and her quitting is the LAST thing any of us here want her to do.

Personally, she's the ONLY person out there who can restart the Middle East peace process. She's the only one who can handle Benjamin Netanyahu. I thank GOD she's in that position she's in, even if it's just for that.

[Jester]

Sorry, but Jester used an old post of mine to further his point, then said I was attacking Bristol. I'm going to defend myself in the thread that takes place in. But if anyone wants to get back to discussing the original post, I won't get in the way.

I kept in line with the original topic. The first response was to call the forum a bunch of tin foil hatters (recurring theme). The line taken to attack Supra ... show a link. If I had just replied that Obama supporters do the same thing (complain about bringing up Obama (in place of Hillary)), I would have been required to present an example. It wasn't difficult to find one.

So now I am being blamed for providing a link. Please, prepare the line of attack to have some form of consistency.

[Jobu86]

I kept in line with the original topic. The first response was to call the forum a bunch of tin foil hatters (recurring theme). The line taken to attack Supra ... show a link. If I had just replied that Obama supporters do the same thing (complain about bringing up Obama (in place of Hillary)), I would have been required to present an example. It wasn't difficult to find one.

So now I am being blamed for providing a link. Please, prepare the line of attack to have some form of consistency.

Uh huh, blaming you for providing a link. Sure.

I was defending my words only. Now where did I attack Bristol again?

[Jester]

Personally, she's the ONLY person out there who can restart the Middle East peace process. She's the only one who can handle Benjamin Netanyahu. I thank GOD she's in that position she's in, even if it's just for that.

I wouldn't go that far. The Middle East will be solved (if ever) by the Middle East. The only true hero of the Middle East in recent history has been Sadat. The US is not the cause of the problems in the Middle East, and it won't be the solution. Partner, yes.

As I've said before, I barely follow what Hillary is doing right now. From what I've gathered, she's been doing a fine job, but let's not make her a deity.

[OzDemocrat]

Obama wants to REMOVE the cap on Social Security taxes!!! I don't consider people making just over $90,000 a year rich! This whole "Obama will only raise taxes on the rich" stuff is a bunch of outright lies!!! :mad:Plans to remove the cap on social security include not raising the amount for those earning less than $250,000.

[Jester]

Plans to remove the cap on social security include not raising the amount for those earning less than $250,000.

Now the $250,000 mark has been talked about going back to Al Gore (probably before). So how does inflation work into this double cap over time?

And the way he handles it is pure "govern out of anger" as opposed to coming up with a solution he didn't make with more than 2 minutes of thought. I've already presented my idea before, so I won't rehash.

[Jester]

On the lighter side:
And for all those who doubt me, did you follow me into some nice cash this weekend by betting on Vitali Klitschko? I also gave a weak thumbs up to bet on Roy Jones (although I did not personally put money on him). If you want to make money betting on sports, follow my boxing picks, not Obama's mangled NCAA picks. I won't be perfect, but I won't be 50% like Obama.

And of course, I called the bank stock rally on WS.

And finally, I said the stoking of the AIG bonus outcry was just a prelude for a much bigger power grab.

[OzDemocrat]

Now the $250,000 mark has been talked about going back to Al Gore (probably before). So how does inflation work into this double cap over time?

And the way he handles it is pure "govern out of anger" as opposed to coming up with a solution he didn't make with more than 2 minutes of thought. I've already presented my idea before, so I won't rehash.
And ive agreed your concerns are relevant, your suggestion with merit, and pointed out that Hillary ended up supporting the same basic plan - so i wont rehash either.

But if its cool with you id like everyone to have the facts correct before we debate them. Thanks.

[Jester]

And ive agreed your concerns are relevant, your suggestion with merit, and pointed out that Hillary ended up supporting the same basic plan - so i wont rehash either.

But if its cool with you id like everyone to have the facts correct before we debate them. Thanks.

I asked a simple question. What happens to the $250K mark on social security over time?

And when did Hillary change her mind? Once her Presidential run was over? During the Primaries she answered quite clearly that she did not support a SS cap removal. And of course, my take is different than Hillary's ... so you might be confusing me with somebody that shapes their views to the candidate. I don't take offense at that because with so many personalities out there on this forum and others, it is sometimes easy to create a conglomerate of a person on a forum.

[Cooney]

Since I joined this board during the primary I have been 100% RIGHT on every political move and outcome. Since I have been right every single time I think its time to stop calling me a conspiracy theorist. The only difference is that I use foreign media sources instead of ours. What goes on in the rest of the world will eventually catch up to our pathetic non reality media.

You know I have been away for a while and when I come back little has changed in manner of discussion. I agree with you CGP, the same old arguments. I was drawn to the topic and thread until I had to trudge through the old diversional posts and defend Obama at all cost posts. Supra, keep it coming, many conspiracy theories turn out to have some truths to them. Besides speculation is such fun, especially when you turn out to be right in the end.

[OzDemocrat]

I asked a simple question. What happens to the $250K mark on social security over time?
Current front runner for The 2009 Derail a Thread in a Transparent Effort to Score "Easy Points" Award?

As we already covered in the thread you referred to in your previous post, Obama had the most detailed plan for social security reform of all viable challengers. Your faux chagrin that the administrations financial teams have yet to release further specifics conveniently ignores their efforts (agree with or otherwise) on higher priorities.
And when did Hillary change her mind? Once her Presidential run was over? During the Primaries she answered quite clearly that she did not support a SS cap removal.
The Clinton teams unwillingness to be drawn on specifics of social security reform was what allowed them so much traction attacking the Obama teams details. It was a good play.

Hillary mentioned several times off the record (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101101292_pf.html) that the she was open to raising the cap and adding provisions to fix rates upto a specific income. This is why interviews and debates repeatedly hit her to say as much.

Again, the plan was originally from the Edward's camp and was $200k, before it became part of the Obama plan (though im sure youre right and Obama upped this to $250k specifically to bring it in line with Al Gore's wishes).

And of course, my take is different than Hillary's ... so you might be confusing me with somebody that shapes their views to the candidate. I don't take offense at that because with so many personalities out there on this forum and others, it is sometimes easy to create a conglomerate of a person on a forum.

Im not overly interested in any correlation of economic principles between Hillary and yourself. I raised Hillary's (and above and in the previous thread, Edward's) also agreeing with the same plan to counter the completely baseless slur that Obama concocted it "out of anger" in 2 minutes of thought. Remember when you ranted about that part? Keen to tout views as not being shaped to a candidate, yet so clearly shaped against one?

[foxyladi]

Will Obama be reelected? Tell us with your crystal ball.

Links?

i want to know...:laughing:

[Jester]

Current front runner for The 2009 Derail a Thread in a Transparent Effort to Score "Easy Points" Award?

As we already covered in the thread you referred to in your previous post, Obama had the most detailed plan for social security reform of all viable challengers. Your faux chagrin that the administrations financial teams have yet to release further specifics conveniently ignores their efforts (agree with or otherwise) on higher priorities.


Give it a rest. Scroll up. Agatha brought up SS, you responded, and I was a distant third. So I guess I would be behind you in derailing the thread. My first response was actually providing a link to what Supra reported to stop the derailment.


Im not overly interested in any correlation of economic principles between Hillary and yourself. I raised Hillary's (and above and in the previous thread, Edward's) also agreeing with the same plan to counter the completely baseless slur that Obama concocted it "out of anger" in 2 minutes of thought. Remember when you ranted about that part? Keen to tout views as not being shaped to a candidate, yet so clearly shaped against one?

So you are stating it took Obama more than 2 minutes to come up with the donut plan. I would hate to think it took more than 2 minutes to come up with the donut plan. Saying it took longer is the true slur. And yess, when you make it about rich v. poor, it is governing out of anger. It sure wouldn't fall in line with what he calls *fair*.

[LadyLazarus]

For all those who doubt me..

Supra, I'm late on this thread, so I apologize if this has already been said, but I've never doubted you and always considered your contributions to be really original and thought-provoking.

[Brooke]

I wouldn't go that far. The Middle East will be solved (if ever) by the Middle East. The only true hero of the Middle East in recent history has been Sadat. The US is not the cause of the problems in the Middle East, and it won't be the solution. Partner, yes.

As I've said before, I barely follow what Hillary is doing right now. From what I've gathered, she's been doing a fine job, but let's not make her a deity.

You said yourself you're not following what she's doing. So really, you don't have much of an idea about her involvement with the Middle East.

Sadat's the only real hero in recent history? I've got another one for you. Yitzhak Rabin. He's a real hero and there's been no Israeli leader since like him.

And I stand by what I said about Hillary and Netanyahu. Nobody else in the Obama administration, minus Dennis Ross, knows him like she does. She's the only one equipped to deal with his personality.

I'd encourage you not to get into an argument with me on this. Trust me, you will lose. Very few people are as passionate about the Middle East and I've met a small handful of people who even know half of what I know on the subject.

[Brooke]

On the lighter side:
And for all those who doubt me, did you follow me into some nice cash this weekend by betting on Vitali Klitschko? I also gave a weak thumbs up to bet on Roy Jones (although I did not personally put money on him). If you want to make money betting on sports, follow my boxing picks, not Obama's mangled NCAA picks. I won't be perfect, but I won't be 50% like Obama.

And of course, I called the bank stock rally on WS.

And finally, I said the stoking of the AIG bonus outcry was just a prelude for a much bigger power grab.

Obama's bracket completely imploded. Mine however, is still very much in tact.

[Jester]

Obama's bracket completely imploded. Mine however, is still very much in tact.

Personally, I wouldn't make a bracket because I'd just be guessing. But then again, looks like I could have flipped a coin and had a chance to keep up with Obama.

[Wyoming Dem]

I'm going to defend Supra as well as others. I have made my position known to Murray and others as regards Hillary CLinton and the job of SoS...I felt it was and is a betrayal of all who worked for her campaign and donated money. Hillary CLinton made no bones about her disdain for Obama's experience, work habits and associations yet she now chooses to work for someone she held up as unworthy. Hypocritical and rather self-serving as she took this job to further her own career. I felt the betrayal so viscerally, that I did as Clinton Fan suggests...I wrote a letter and I asked for my campaign contributions back. I think that anyone has a right to question her motives in accepting the job of SofS and does not deserve to be treated as a "traitor to the cause".

Supra has followed the economy intensly beginning nearly two years ago. While I may be less well read on the subject, and disagree with some of the sources he sites, he has steadfastly claimed that Obama and his meaningless minions would be bad for this economy and were ill-equipped to end the economic turmoil (and I will whole-heartedly agree that Obama did not cause most of it but certainly, his fellow Democrats who had two years as a majority in both houses played just as active a part as did the Bush Administration.) My point being that no matter who is at fault, Obama is woefully ill equipted as are the choices he has made to lead this country out of the worse economic time of it's history (and yes.... in many ways it is worse than '29 due to the complexity of financial considerations we have now that those in '29 had never heard of.)

I will not argue Obama's suitability for anything. Pointless from my perspective. I only post because I feel that Supra has had and still has important points to bring up and issues to discuss and whether we all agree with him or not, he has a track record here and deserves to be heard and treated with respect. He still has friends here of long standing and I count myself among them.

One added note as regards the Middle East...Please...Hillary CLinton is not St. George. The Middle East has been a negative cornucopia of war, land grabs, religious intolerance, poverty, fanatacism and rebellion since humans took up occupation of those hostile and un-inviting lands. Hillary Clinton is no better and no worse than anyone else that has tried to bring about a lasting peace in that part of the world that rejects peace and prosperity outright. To hold her up as a "Ghandi-esque" figure does diservice to her and to all those that have tried and failed previously. There is a great quote who's author I will now not be able to recall but it says simply "There will only be peace in the Middle East when all parties tire of their children dieing."

More diplomatic than this I cannot be.

[Horizon]

some who were in the campaign fight and interacted with highups in her campaign know supra is not full of shit

I am in agreement with Amy on this and I know this first hand from a friend who was a super delegate and was there for Hillary in Denver.

[Kbentleyis]

Some good arguments here. However, we'll all have to agree, our so-called leaders did not construct good bailout and stimulus plans. Everything was hurry, hurry, hurry. Sure, something needed to be done quickly, but at what expense? Only now, are a few flaws being exposed. My guess is, many more to come.

How many of you have been screwed signing or buying something without thinking or investigating before hand?

Everyone, I've know Supra for quite some time, and if I were you... I'd listen.

[Amy Dugan]

I am in agreement with Amy on this and I know this first hand from a friend who was a super delegate and was there for Hillary in Denver.

the Soros info was told to me personally by someone at the VERY top and how the superdelegates who were concerned about raising money for their own campaigns were seeing who had the money and could draw in donors (obama) and experience as president was less of a factor for supporting him...... rest is confidential

CLOSE this thread

[Jester]

Ok, tons of talk with very little (any?) linkage. So lets start with the Soros - Obama connection. For those of you that don't know (I doubt any here) Soros is "the man who broke the Bank of England" in 1992. Not somebody to be admired.

So here is a current article titled George Soros interview: A very good crisis
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25211027-5018061,00.html
Yes, you read it right ... a very good crisis (referring to our crisis).

It is a very long article/3 part interview that you can check out yourself. I will just highlight some relevant quotes:


So do you have a sense that things are coming together for you now?
It is in a way a culminating point of my life’s work, so to speak.

Everything is coming together.
Yeah, the American election, the financial crisis, the theory of reflexivity. So it is actually a very stimulating period.

Just as well you didn't retire ten years ago.
Right, right.

Will you be having any input with the Obama administration?
Well, at least I will get a hearing.

I have read conflicting accounts of whether you got a hearing with the Clinton administration. You complained that you were not listened to but (Treasury secretary) Larry Summers says he treated you like a head of state.
I did get a hearing; it is just that I didn’t prevail. I was advocating policy issues and I did get a hearing but my recommendations did not ever lead to implementation by the government.



When did you first decide to back Obama for the presidency?
I encouraged him to run before he declared. Not because I thought he would win, I did not back him because I thought he was going to win. I did not necessarily think that he would win but I thought that America needed a greater discontinuity from its previous policies than Hilary Clinton would have provided because it would have meant a return to the Clinton era and after all the Clinton era spawned the Bush era and we went off in a very wrong direction.

That must have been a very lonely position to take at the time.
It didn’t feel lonely and actually the day he declared or the day before he actually used my office to meet other people in Wall Street. I didn’t attend that meeting but I offered him my office and he did have other backers on Wall Street and actually the hedge fund community got to like him quite a bit. I think my support helped to attract the hedge fund community.

Have you thought about the problems in the media in America?
Yes.

Has it crossed your mind that you might get involved?
It is a big, big issue to which I have no solution. Lots of people push me to buy media and so on but I think it would be trying to push an avalanche uphill. To stand in the way as something as fundamental as the decline of the printed press would be, as I say, trying to push water uphill. So actually I am more interested in fostering new media to be used for the public interest, it is new forms of communication.

Is the Open Society Institute doing that?
We are doing some of that, blogs and things like that. Journalism as a profession is endangered. There is no question about that. And since we are supporting journalism worldwide it is an active issue for discussion without having been able to find anything really creative to do as far as the American media is concerned.



So that makes the point that sometimes a strategic focused input in the market can have an effect.
Yeah, but the markets tend to do that by themselves. It is not one person doing it. Often when there is a crisis brewing, the market abhors uncertainty and therefore it tends to push governments to move by effectively bear-raiding the market be it currency or stock market so in the aftermath of Lehman for instance by Thursday the stock market was ready to collapse, forcing Paulson to come out with TARP without being prepared to do it. The market was forcing it, so that is what normally happens. So I was only doing what the market… It would have been forced out of the ERM, maybe I accelerated it by half a day. It is like I think Marx says that all you can do is to accelerate the course of history that would occur anyhow, and he is right.



And that was your experience?
Well it was um… I lost money on the investment. But interestingly for the first time I actually had an effect on policy in connection with TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) because when Secretary Paulson proposed using it for the buying of toxic assets I wrote an oped piece pointing out that that is the wrong way to go and the Democratic majority in Congress inserted language which allowed the Treasury to use it for equity and actually Paulson then changed his mind and used it for equity although he didn’t do it the right way. But I would say that was the first experience in my life, maybe there were some others but that was the first when I really felt that I did actually succeed in influencing policy.

Hopefully there will be a few more?
I am working on it.

Well, there it is.

[greenleaf]

Well, now we know what Soros is willing to publicly assert as his sole influence in the public policy realm. Any behind the scenes influence, would of course be hard to document.
Political maneuvering is usually not brought to light by the parties involved, but in time information may come out.
I don't think one needs a tinfoil hat to entertain questions. The published word is not the sole source of truth.