# FINANCIAL CRISIS



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

curious to see everyones take on this. 
personally i think no one should be bailed out, however the fallout from that decision isnt totally clear other than "chaos" according to bush. 
i think that when you make a poor business decision, you suffer the consequences and go bankrupt, if there is a need for your business, then the market will embrace someone else. no need to pay the same guys who made the mistakes to keep making them.
but thats just my opinion.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

/\/\
agreed.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

no bail outs. this is the start of a snowballing effect. this will solve nothing for the gov. to absord debt


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

no bailouts...market needs to go to sh*t so it can correct itself naturally. prices are too high as it is. I don't know who the economist was, but one of them showed that when prices get too high, and renting becomes drastically cheaper than a mortgage payment, people stop buying.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

Boobah said:


> no bailouts...market needs to go to sh*t so it can correct itself naturally. prices are too high as it is. I don't know who the economist was, but one of them showed that when prices get too high, *and renting becomes drastically cheaper than a mortgage payment, people stop buying.*


you just described my current situation


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

I dont believe in the bailout either. However, its projected that if there isn't a bailout within 1 week from today, the stock market could almost completely collapse.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

TheWayThingsR said:


> I dont believe in the bailout either. However, its projected that if there isn't a bailout within 1 week from today, the stock market could almost completely collapse.


what exactly would a stock market collapse mean?
people loose all money they have tied into it? 
what else could happen? what is the basis of that projection. 
i honestly dont know, im not being an ass.


----------



## ICEE (Feb 3, 2007)

bailout please


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

Nick G said:


> I dont believe in the bailout either. However, its projected that if there isn't a bailout within 1 week from today, the stock market could almost completely collapse.


what exactly would a stock market collapse mean?
people loose all money they have tied into it? 
what else could happen? what is the basis of that projection. 
i honestly dont know, im not being an ass.
[/quote]

We went over this very question today in my Business class. Basically could lead to 1929 all over again. The deadline is a week from now. Bush's $700B plan has to pass within that time frame. But according to what I've read today and what we talked about, Congress made a counter proposal to the $700B plan.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/25/news/econo...sion=2008092513

EDIT: According to my professor, this is all Reagen's fault. Which I suppose it is to some extent.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

TheWayThingsR said:


> I dont believe in the bailout either. However, its projected that if there isn't a bailout within 1 week from today, the stock market could almost completely collapse.


what exactly would a stock market collapse mean?
people loose all money they have tied into it? 
what else could happen? what is the basis of that projection. 
i honestly dont know, im not being an ass.
[/quote]

We went over this very question today in my Business class. Basically could lead to 1929 all over again. The deadline is a week from now. Bush's $700B plan has to pass within that time frame. But according to what I've read today and what we talked about, Congress made a counter proposal to the $700B plan.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/25/news/econo...sion=2008092513

EDIT: According to my professor, this is all Reagen's fault. Which I suppose it is to some extent.
[/quote]

not that i'm suspicious of a college professor blaming reagen, but i'm curious as to how he came to that conclusion.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

mdrs said:


> I dont believe in the bailout either. However, its projected that if there isn't a bailout within 1 week from today, the stock market could almost completely collapse.


what exactly would a stock market collapse mean?
people loose all money they have tied into it? 
what else could happen? what is the basis of that projection. 
i honestly dont know, im not being an ass.
[/quote]

We went over this very question today in my Business class. Basically could lead to 1929 all over again. The deadline is a week from now. Bush's $700B plan has to pass within that time frame. But according to what I've read today and what we talked about, Congress made a counter proposal to the $700B plan.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/25/news/econo...sion=2008092513

EDIT: According to my professor, this is all Reagen's fault. Which I suppose it is to some extent.
[/quote]

not that i'm suspicious of a college professor blaming reagen, but i'm curious as to how he came to that conclusion.
[/quote]

college professors find it easier to blame republicans than to actually think about the problem.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

Reagan loosened regulation of banks and financial markets, which caused an enormous amount of borrowing. These regulations had been upheld since the end of the great depression. Reagan also believed in self correcting markets, which was a mistake.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

> But House Republicans are not on board, according to Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio.
> 
> "House Republicans have not agreed to any plan at this point," Boehner said.


dudes name is Boner.
thats comedy right there.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

Nick G said:


> > But House Republicans are not on board, according to Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio.
> >
> > "House Republicans have not agreed to any plan at this point," Boehner said.
> 
> ...


i thought the same exact thing


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

this is typical of a liberal professor. just as typical as a conservative one always being in favor of deregulation. as usual, the truth is generally in the middle. keep in mind, when you deregulate something, money lenders make no more money by acting against their own self interest. however, when you pass legislation (much of which has been done long after reagen's tenure) forcing lenders to act against their own self interest it usually involves lending to people who need/deserve whatever they can't afford.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

Boobah said:


> > But House Republicans are not on board, according to Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio.
> >
> > "House Republicans have not agreed to any plan at this point," Boehner said.
> 
> ...


i thought the same exact thing
[/quote]
you know what would also be funny, if he married a chick named Mary Anne
Mary A. Boehner
oh man, sorry, this is a serious topic, but when life Tees one up for you, you gotta swing.
ok, continue serious talk.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

Nick G said:


> > But House Republicans are not on board, according to Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio.
> >
> > "House Republicans have not agreed to any plan at this point," Boehner said.
> 
> ...


i thought the same exact thing
[/quote]
you know what would also be funny, if he married a chick named Mary Anne
Mary A. Boehner
oh man, sorry, this is a serious topic, but when life Tees one up for you, you gotta swing.
ok, continue serious talk.
[/quote]
Anita would be good too. Anita Boehner. Classic.


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

Nick G said:


> curious to see everyones take on this.
> personally i think no one should be bailed out, however the fallout from that decision isnt totally clear other than "chaos" according to bush.
> i think that when you make a poor business decision, you suffer the consequences and go bankrupt, if there is a need for your business, then the market will embrace someone else. no need to pay the same guys who made the mistakes to keep making them.
> but thats just my opinion.


i dont want to help stupid people
i dont want to help greedy stupid corporations

so no one. let them all burn.


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

another bailout that we the poeple will be paying for years to come.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

i once knew of an Anita Brown who married into the Johnson Family
you can see where that went.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

b_ack51 said:


> curious to see everyones take on this.
> personally i think no one should be bailed out, however the fallout from that decision isnt totally clear other than "chaos" according to bush.
> i think that when you make a poor business decision, you suffer the consequences and go bankrupt, if there is a need for your business, then the market will embrace someone else. no need to pay the same guys who made the mistakes to keep making them.
> but thats just my opinion.


i dont want to help stupid people
i dont want to help greedy stupid corporations

so no one. let them all burn.
[/quote]

agreed


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

no one should get money. if you give a loan to someone who can't pay it that's your bad and you're the one who should bite the bullet. likewise, if you pull out a loan that you can't pay back then you should be stuck with it. that's the name of the game.

though, i won't complain if my debt gets cleared.


----------



## [email protected]° (Jun 16, 2004)

I like turtles


----------



## Pit_man (Sep 13, 2008)

The part that get's me is I'm sure the people that ran these corporations into the ground got very very rich doing so. They prob still go home to there million dollar houses.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

DEY TOOK OR JERBZ!!!!!!!!


----------



## notaverage (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm not sure.
Its catch 22...if they arent bailed out we may all suffer horrendously!
I cant have that now with having my first child on the way and just being 6 months into my 30 year mortgage!


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

unfortunately the bail out is a necessary evil, however i think the bailout should only extend far enough to stabalize the markets not to save these corporations or irrisponsable people, both took unecessary risks that are now effecting all of us. i do not agree with the crys to intervene to prevent a recession, i feel teh market should be allowed to make natural corrections. if teh govt would have allowed that to happen after 911 we would not have had the housing bubble that caused our current situation. this current attempt to alter teh course of teh market will ikely have additional negative impact.


----------



## notaverage (Sep 10, 2005)

I agree there Nismo.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

YES! We're not the only ones. Ireland recently became the first European nation to hit a current recession!


----------



## fishguy1313 (Feb 19, 2007)

You need not worry who is at fault. The problem is that you and I are going to have to repay these balances with our taxes. There is no way around it.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

notaverage said:


> I'm not sure.
> Its catch 22...if they arent bailed out we may all suffer horrendously!
> I cant have that now with having my first child on the way and just being 6 months into my 30 year mortgage!


Are you worried about your job? I know I'm not. They say if they suffer we'll suffer, f*ck it it builds character







let em rot like the greedy fat bastards that they are.


----------



## lament configuration (Jun 22, 2003)

lol food stamp backed mortgages.


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

to be honest, i dont know if anyone really knows what is going to happen. As smart as bernanke and paulson and their teams are, this is uncharted water. If we don't get a bailout by friday, what happens? Does the market collapse? If a bailout happens, what happens to the US dollar? 700 billion 'appearing' does not do well for the dollar.

As for blame, i think it is a long long road that caused this. To point to one specific thing seems to be a bit too much. There were many bills that built up over time that allowed this to happen. To allow quasi-gov't corporations have all this bad debt seems asinine. To have banks leveraged 50 to 1 seems dumb. To give people mortgages without any money down and with no proof of income seems retarded.

It is kind of sad, because what drove all these companies and governments to do this? Greed. It is that simple. Banks knew there were risks and the only reason they took them was that the money WAS so good. Now, it has all turned to sh*t. You play with fire and you get burned. Stocks, or any investment, are risk vs. reward. If you buy stocks you can lose it all. Companies used debt and mortgages to invest and they lost.

I am not a die hard regulation person, but something failed that allowed a select few companies get soooo big that if they failed we may go into a depression. Maybe they should be watching more. They broke up Bell ages ago when it got too big because it was 'bad for the consumer'. Why didnt they break up these banks that if they failed they would throw the country(and possibly the rest of the world) into financial chaos?

I think this is one time there really are more questions than answers.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

While I'm generally against any type of bailout, this situation is so screwed that we need the bailout. We're holding the whole world hostage with our decision and we can see the worlds financial markets ebb and flow with each word our politicians say. Those who say they aren't affect will be if it doesn't go through. Small businesses can't get any loans, banks stop loaning to banks, and the little people will get affected. Its like a set of domino's and while its admirable the republicans have lots of misgivings about the bill, they're being too stubborn. Who knew that Bush would be on one side with the democrats and the republicans on the other side holding it up?! Confidence in the US market will plummet even more. If this is done well, the US may come out ahead with the deflated mortgages.


----------



## notaverage (Sep 10, 2005)

Liquid said:


> I'm not sure.
> Its catch 22...if they arent bailed out we may all suffer horrendously!
> I cant have that now with having my first child on the way and just being 6 months into my 30 year mortgage!


Are you worried about your job? I know I'm not. They say if they suffer we'll suffer, f*ck it it builds character :laugh: let em rot like the greedy fat bastards that they are.
[/quote]

Not really. I'm at a level of management in an international company that I am needed.
Reason being is I someone needs to be able to audit train and work with the new reps and current reps in NJ.
They cant do that from Plano, TX.

Now...my boss may be dispensable b/c they can throw more of his work at us and to his superior. They may cut the managers back and throw more work at the others...I dont know.

We work for a large amount of clients in the Retail industry...so retail isnt doing to good...therefore either are we.
I laid off 10 people 2 weeks ago and last Friday I had to let 10 employees know that we had to take back their company vehicles and Company CC's from them.
They have to pay for their own gas now!

SOrry off topic....


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

diddye said:


> While I'm generally against any type of bailout, this situation is so screwed that we need the bailout. We're holding the whole world hostage with our decision and we can see the worlds financial markets ebb and flow with each word our politicians say. Those who say they aren't affect will be if it doesn't go through. Small businesses can't get any loans, banks stop loaning to banks, and the little people will get affected. Its like a set of domino's and while its admirable the republicans have lots of misgivings about the bill, they're being too stubborn. Who knew that Bush would be on one side with the democrats and the republicans on the other side holding it up?! Confidence in the US market will plummet even more. If this is done well, the US may come out ahead with the deflated mortgages.


I guess one concern is there is absolutely NO guarantee this bailout will permanently stop the tailspin we are in. Everyone is saying we absolutely need this, but there's no formula that says if the companies get the money everything will be rosy. Whitney did something similar before the 1929 crash. The market was tanking and all the big guys on wall street decided something had to be done. They held meetings and decided whitney should show confidence in the market. He bought a large block of blue chip stocks and they market still crashed.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Well, there are no guarantees but economists say its a step in the right direction. Put it this way, the anticipation of this bailout is holding our stock market steady and if it doesn't go through, we can expect a world recession(imo). There's no way we can give a guarantee because nobody can predict the future. Those concerns are exactly why the republicans are scared to move forward. I can understand both sides but if we keep doing nothing, I fear the fall will continue.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

notaverage said:


> I'm not sure.
> Its catch 22...if they arent bailed out we may all suffer horrendously!
> I cant have that now with having my first child on the way and just being 6 months into my 30 year mortgage!


Are you worried about your job? I know I'm not. They say if they suffer we'll suffer, f*ck it it builds character :laugh: let em rot like the greedy fat bastards that they are.
[/quote]

Not really. I'm at a level of management in an international company that I am needed.
Reason being is I someone needs to be able to audit train and work with the new reps and current reps in NJ.
They cant do that from Plano, TX.

Now...my boss may be dispensable b/c they can throw more of his work at us and to his superior. They may cut the managers back and throw more work at the others...I dont know.

We work for a large amount of clients in the Retail industry...so retail isnt doing to good...therefore either are we.
I laid off 10 people 2 weeks ago and last Friday I had to let 10 employees know that we had to take back their company vehicles and Company CC's from them.
They have to pay for their own gas now!

SOrry off topic....
[/quote]

yeah I'm a contractor, thought I was going to have to go back to repairs but we just got a hospital







both inside and out


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

scrubbs said:


> While I'm generally against any type of bailout, this situation is so screwed that we need the bailout. We're holding the whole world hostage with our decision and we can see the worlds financial markets ebb and flow with each word our politicians say. Those who say they aren't affect will be if it doesn't go through. Small businesses can't get any loans, banks stop loaning to banks, and the little people will get affected. Its like a set of domino's and while its admirable the republicans have lots of misgivings about the bill, they're being too stubborn. Who knew that Bush would be on one side with the democrats and the republicans on the other side holding it up?! Confidence in the US market will plummet even more. If this is done well, the US may come out ahead with the deflated mortgages.


I guess one concern is there is absolutely NO guarantee this bailout will permanently stop the tailspin we are in. Everyone is saying we absolutely need this, but there's no formula that says if the companies get the money everything will be rosy. Whitney did something similar before the 1929 crash. The market was tanking and all the big guys on wall street decided something had to be done. They held meetings and decided whitney should show confidence in the market. He bought a large block of blue chip stocks and they market still crashed.
[/quote]

i dont think this will really correct things and make a drastic turn around.

lets sa it does go through, the govt will buy buying these "assets" off of the banking industry still at far less then they were worth when the banks were giving out th loans. so even after tehy clear these assets off their books teh companies will still be are far less financial standing then they were when people had the perception of a strong economy.


----------



## Dr. Giggles (Oct 18, 2003)

Unfortunately there is no alternative to this bailout. The banking system is now officially broken. The problem is 700 billion dollars is not going to do dick for the 180 trillion dollars in garbage derivatives that is floating in the global system. There will be a bailout, a temporary relief and bounce, but ultimately "Black October" is around the corner. Fortunately I no longer work for these large financial firms so Im not to concerned about my current job working for an international law firm that actually has all these banks/brokerage firms as their client. All in all, the US Congress is to blame because their has been cries for almost 10 years to have changes done to the system and nothing got done. Cant blame Bush for this, he can only sign or not sign a law.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Dr. Giggles said:


> Unfortunately there is no alternative to this bailout. The banking system is now officially broken. The problem is 700 billion dollars is not going to do dick for the 180 trillion dollars in garbage derivatives that is floating in the global system. There will be a bailout, a temporary relief and bounce, but ultimately "Black October" is around the corner. Fortunately I no longer work for these large financial firms so Im not to concerned about my current job working for an international law firm that actually has all these banks/brokerage firms as their client. All in all, the US Congress is to blame because their has been cries for almost 10 years to have changes done to the system and nothing got done. Cant blame Bush for this, he can only sign or not sign a law.


while there may have been cries for changes there were also cries to have the fed lowered in the wake of 9/11, fears of economic struggles after 9/11 turned investors to the housing market and the boom began, the bush administration did not want to accept defeat on two fronts (being attacked and falling into recession) then face the resistance to the war on terror with a weak economy. once the housing market began to accelerate and gave the perception of strong economy (due to the lending made possible through the lowered federal rate) they began to raise the fed, this made some of those loans become too expensive for some of the people who thought they would be able to take advantage of the lower rate to get things going and expected the economy to continue to be strong enough for them to cover the costs of the loans. this started to make the balancing act begin to wobble and we saw thefirst coupld of casualties, like counrty which began to expose the true weakness of the false heights the markets had acheived. Additionally because the economy was not actually as strong as these manipulations created the illusion of it being people have not been spending real money, jobs have not been created and these assets that were purchased through the loans were not actually worth what they were valued at when the housing bubble was at its peak.

so yes the bush administrations failure to accept a rough economy and to allow it to make natural corrections resulted in policy that led to our current situation.

Just like the corporations that took excess risk to boost the short term bottom line to make them look good, the current administration has followed these same practices, regularly going in front of the public and making claims of a robust economy to give the public a false sense of confidence so they would borrow them self into a deep hole then they can climb out of.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

nismo driver said:


> so yes the bush administrations failure to accept a rough economy and to allow it to make natural corrections resulted in policy that led to our current situation.


what i dont get.. on a basic level... WWII brought us out of a depression, the war machine created jobs like making guns and machinery and whatever. war boosted the economy.

why now, is there basically a war, but the economy is toppling. shouldnt the fact that we are spending resources on equipment, paying soldiers, weapons, etc. be fanning out to everyone?


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

nismo driver said:


> Unfortunately there is no alternative to this bailout. The banking system is now officially broken. The problem is 700 billion dollars is not going to do dick for the 180 trillion dollars in garbage derivatives that is floating in the global system. There will be a bailout, a temporary relief and bounce, but ultimately "Black October" is around the corner. Fortunately I no longer work for these large financial firms so Im not to concerned about my current job working for an international law firm that actually has all these banks/brokerage firms as their client. All in all, the US Congress is to blame because their has been cries for almost 10 years to have changes done to the system and nothing got done. Cant blame Bush for this, he can only sign or not sign a law.


while there may have been cries for changes there were also cries to have the fed lowered in the wake of 9/11, fears of economic struggles after 9/11 turned investors to the housing market and the boom began, the bush administration did not want to accept defeat on two fronts (being attacked and falling into recession) then face the resistance to the war on terror with a weak economy. once the housing market began to accelerate and gave the perception of strong economy (due to the lending made possible through the lowered federal rate) they began to raise the fed, this made some of those loans become too expensive for some of the people who thought they would be able to take advantage of the lower rate to get things going and expected the economy to continue to be strong enough for them to cover the costs of the loans. this started to make the balancing act begin to wobble and we saw thefirst coupld of casualties, like counrty which began to expose the true weakness of the false heights the markets had acheived. Additionally because the economy was not actually as strong as these manipulations created the illusion of it being people have not been spending real money, jobs have not been created and these assets that were purchased through the loans were not actually worth what they were valued at when the housing bubble was at its peak.

so yes the bush administrations failure to accept a rough economy and to allow it to make natural corrections resulted in policy that led to our current situation.

Just like the corporations that took excess risk to boost the short term bottom line to make them look good, the current administration has followed these same practices, regularly going in front of the public and making claims of a robust economy to give the public a false sense of confidence so they would borrow them self into a deep hole then they can climb out of.
[/quote]

Are you saying that this prez/gov lies to its people??? Thats ridiculous!


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Nick G said:


> so yes the bush administrations failure to accept a rough economy and to allow it to make natural corrections resulted in policy that led to our current situation.


what i dont get.. on a basic level... WWII brought us out of a depression, the war machine created jobs like making guns and machinery and whatever. war boosted the economy.

why now, is there basically a war, but the economy is toppling. shouldnt the fact that we are spending resources on equipment, paying soldiers, weapons, etc. be fanning out to everyone?
[/quote]

the second world war didn't bring the US out of a depression. the idea that war is good for an economy is nothing more than an example of the broken window fallacy.

and nismo, how is it that you didn't mention at all the fact that the lenders were strong armed into making loans they didn't want to rather than stating that they did so on purpose for short term gains? or do you really believe that this whole mess was caused by (yet again) evil republicans?


----------



## Doktordet (Sep 22, 2006)

So with all this sh*t about banks closing, Feds stepping in, $700B in bailout, etc., has your spending changed? or do you intend to spend less? given the tough financial times, how do you feel about buying that long-desired 250 gallon set up? or maybe that $800 giant rhom? or maybe $3000 alloy wheels for your ride?


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Nick G said:


> so yes the bush administrations failure to accept a rough economy and to allow it to make natural corrections resulted in policy that led to our current situation.


what i dont get.. on a basic level... WWII brought us out of a depression, the war machine created jobs like making guns and machinery and whatever. war boosted the economy.

why now, is there basically a war, but the economy is toppling. shouldnt the fact that we are spending resources on equipment, paying soldiers, weapons, etc. be fanning out to everyone?
[/quote]

the war in iraq/afganistan ect is nothing like ww2, leading up to ww2 we did nto have the military infrastructure to move millions of troops across teh sea and provide them with weapons and transportation and we also did not have teh manufacturing infrastructure to produce the necessary hardware so factories were converted to mass produce everything. this did create jobs and genereate revenu and after the war all of this industry was repurposed to fuel economic growth.

now we ahve massive military infrastructure and more then enough pre existing comapanies to produce what ever the military needs plus we have been spending trillions on defense for decades so jsut becausewe are actually putting the hardware to use does not mean the war has put a higher demand for this hardware so its not really having the same impact as the demand for these products did back in ww2.

as far as paying soldiers the defense department has restructured the way they do business they are now paying "consultants" much much more then we paid us military personel to perform many of the jobs the military would perform so its really costing tax payers alot more to conduct military operations then it did back in ww2.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

mdrs said:


> so yes the bush administrations failure to accept a rough economy and to allow it to make natural corrections resulted in policy that led to our current situation.


what i dont get.. on a basic level... WWII brought us out of a depression, the war machine created jobs like making guns and machinery and whatever. war boosted the economy.

why now, is there basically a war, but the economy is toppling. shouldnt the fact that we are spending resources on equipment, paying soldiers, weapons, etc. be fanning out to everyone?
[/quote]

the second world war didn't bring the US out of a depression. the idea that war is good for an economy is nothing more than an example of the broken window fallacy.

and nismo, how is it that you didn't mention at all the fact that the lenders were strong armed into making loans they didn't want to rather than stating that they did so on purpose for short term gains? or do you really believe that this whole mess was caused by (yet again) evil republicans?
[/quote]

im sure at some level there was pressure to make things happen that people on many levels may have been against just as im also sure it was more or less unnnaimous (dems and reps) to lower the fed to stimulate growth in the wake of 911 but ultimately it is teh bush administration that goes in fron the the nation and makes claims about strong economy and has influence over makeing teh cahnges that manipulated the rates to enable this disaster along with lobiest that were probably pushing for these manipulations, alot of people made alot of money during the housing bubble even now alot of peopel have made alot witht ehmarket volitility, im not niave anough to just place blame on the republicans but generally they are against market regulation and for making it easier for big buisness to cunduct business adn thisis a big part of this mess. trying to pull americans into the "american dream" with full knowledge of the amoutn of risk they were exposings everyone to with a majority of them not being fully aware of the risk they were taking.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

why cant we just get rid of lobbyists. 
they seem to be at the root of the problem. politicians being influenced by people with money, favors exchanged and made good on, seems to me that if we could take the lobbiests hooks out of politics, we would have a lot more honesty and a lot less conflict of interest. 
too bad the people who would have to make that decision are the ones who are getting wined and dined.

and nismo, ur response makes a lot of sense btw...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

and the fact that the government set up fannie and freddie and forced them in court to provide loans to people they didn't want to loan to is the current administration's fault as well? just because the current administration put some butter on the sh*t sandwich doesn't mean that it was all on them. as i've said about this before, there's enough blame to go around, no need to lump in all in one presidency.



Nick G said:


> why cant we just get rid of lobbyists.
> they seem to be at the root of the problem. politicians being influenced by people with money, favors exchanged and made good on, seems to me that if we could take the lobbiests hooks out of politics, we would have a lot more honesty and a lot less conflict of interest.
> too bad the people who would have to make that decision are the ones who are getting wined and dined.
> 
> and nismo, ur response makes a lot of sense btw...


never underestimate the human ability to be corrupt. politicians don't make bad choices due to lobbyists. they make them because that's just what irresponsible people are going to do. just like borrowers don't make bad choices because of banks, they make them because that's what irresponsible people do.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

mdrs said:


> why cant we just get rid of lobbyists.
> they seem to be at the root of the problem. politicians being influenced by people with money, favors exchanged and made good on, seems to me that if we could take the lobbiests hooks out of politics, we would have a lot more honesty and a lot less conflict of interest.
> too bad the people who would have to make that decision are the ones who are getting wined and dined.
> 
> and nismo, ur response makes a lot of sense btw...


never underestimate the human ability to be corrupt. politicians don't make bad choices due to lobbyists. they make them because that's just what irresponsible people are going to do. just like borrowers don't make bad choices because of banks, they make them because that's what irresponsible people do.
[/quote]
oh, humans will be corrupt, i dont dispute that. 
im just saying that removing special interests will remove a temptation to be more corrupt than they already are is all. 
im not saying its a catch-all but i think it is a good start.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Nick G said:


> why cant we just get rid of lobbyists.
> they seem to be at the root of the problem. politicians being influenced by people with money, favors exchanged and made good on, seems to me that if we could take the lobbiests hooks out of politics, we would have a lot more honesty and a lot less conflict of interest.
> too bad the people who would have to make that decision are the ones who are getting wined and dined.
> 
> and nismo, ur response makes a lot of sense btw...


its easy to look down on activities of lobbiest and get pissed but this too is a necessary evil, there are many things that are accomplish through lobbiest that the public really does bennifit, either through policy that makes it easier for employers to hire or pay more people by reducing their operational costs or by making the products we buy more affordable by altering regulations.. its a tough call. ultimately greed is evil and corporations would rather use lobiest to persuade officials to cahnges things in their favor to mkae their business more profitable tehn for them to take any kind of profit loss to make the same thing happen with out having soem kindof negative side effect to the public. this is reallty not much difference then teh arguement between seperating church and state. many people who would love to see lobbiest activites out of govt would defend church activities in govt..


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Nick G said:


> why cant we just get rid of lobbyists.
> they seem to be at the root of the problem. politicians being influenced by people with money, favors exchanged and made good on, seems to me that if we could take the lobbiests hooks out of politics, we would have a lot more honesty and a lot less conflict of interest.
> too bad the people who would have to make that decision are the ones who are getting wined and dined.
> 
> and nismo, ur response makes a lot of sense btw...


never underestimate the human ability to be corrupt. politicians don't make bad choices due to lobbyists. they make them because that's just what irresponsible people are going to do. just like borrowers don't make bad choices because of banks, they make them because that's what irresponsible people do.
[/quote]
oh, humans will be corrupt, i dont dispute that. 
im just saying that removing special interests will remove a temptation to be more corrupt than they already are is all. 
im not saying its a catch-all but i think it is a good start.

[/quote]

when you treat symptoms that's all you get rid of. and it's great until five minutes later when another symptom pops up. the way to treat the root cause is to motivate the average american moron to spend a few minutes a day checking up on his government rather than american idol or his fantasy football stats.

or even better, we require a test for all immigrants to get citizenship, make people take a test to vote. if you can't name the three branches of the government, if you don't know the birthday of the country, if you can't name 3 signatories of the declaration of independence, who aren't named washington, franklin, and hancock, you're not voting. sh*t we don't even make sure they can use the ballot.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

if we were tested with your questions, probably 90% of this site couldn't vote haha, but hey, Mccain would probably do better because Obama would lose all his young voters.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

diddye said:


> Who knew that Bush would be on one side with the democrats and the republicans on the other side holding it up?!


Heh...


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

i think if they are paying taxes, they should vote, thats all i ask of immigrants.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

yeah although i do think voting is a powerful act that should be provided to those responsible enough to use it wisely but im sure hundreds of ears ago the voters were less educated and had thier own specific interest that may or may not have been very wise and they probably did not knwo everything about everyone that made it possible for them to vote but it was right that was given to them and us to choose the people that we hope will represent out interest in govt matters.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

anyone who believes that someone shouldn't be legally able to take out a loan because a bank should deem them irresponsible, should, logically, feel the same way about voting. how much more important is that?


----------



## notaverage (Sep 10, 2005)

notaverage said:


> I'm not sure.
> Its catch 22...if they arent bailed out we may all suffer horrendously!
> I cant have that now with having my first child on the way and just being 6 months into my 30 year mortgage!


Are you worried about your job? I know I'm not. They say if they suffer we'll suffer, f*ck it it builds character :laugh: let em rot like the greedy fat bastards that they are.
[/quote]

Not really. I'm at a level of management in an international company that I am needed.
Reason being is I someone needs to be able to audit train and work with the new reps and current reps in NJ.
They cant do that from Plano, TX.

Now...my boss may be dispensable b/c they can throw more of his work at us and to his superior. They may cut the managers back and throw more work at the others...I dont know.

We work for a large amount of clients in the Retail industry...so retail isnt doing to good...therefore either are we.
I laid off 10 people 2 weeks ago and last Friday I had to let 10 employees know that we had to take back their company vehicles and Company CC's from them.
They have to pay for their own gas now!

SOrry off topic....
[/quote]

My Regional Super and the other 12 in the country were all let go as of This Friday!!
He called me this morning and told me to keep it quite.

Worst part is the Regionals have the option of taking over one of the supervisory positions below them which = ME, or one of 5 other in the region!
He told me the company wants to keep the Strong which I am supposedly and get rid of a guy In PA.

So here come the changes man!!!

I guess I am neervous now...All my friends and neighbors that own businesses are struggling.
People are all trying to work off of credit rather then paying...Its not looking good.

Now Wachovia is bought out!
My wives aunt works at one of the main offices and said that Citi Group buying them is the worst thing that could happen...Slashing jobs are coming!

What do you all think about these new increased loans below?

Fed takes fresh steps to battle credit crisis
Action intended to 'expand significantly' the availability of cash available

updated 1 hour, 59 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Federal Reserve and other countries' central banks announced new steps Monday that makes billions of dollars available to squeezed banks here and abroad to battle a worsening credit crisis that threatens to unhinge the U.S. economy.

The Fed said the action is intended to "expand significantly" the cash available to financial institutions in an effort to relieve to the worst credit crisis since the Great Depression. In taking the action, the Fed cited "continued strains" in the demand for short-term funding.

Central banks will continue to work closely and are prepared to take "appropriate steps as needed" to ease the crisis and get banks lending again, the Fed said.

Under one new step, the Fed will boost the amount of 84-day cash loans available to U.S. banks. The Fed is increasing the amount to $75 billion, up from the current $25 billion starting on Oct. 6. Banks bid on a slice of the loans at an auction.

That move will triple the supply of 84-day loans to $225 billion, from $75 billion, the Fed said.

Meanwhile, the Fed will continue to make $75 billion worth of shorter, 28-day loans available to banks.

All told, the total amount of cash loans - 84-day and 28-day - available to banks will double to $300 billion from $150 billion, the Fed said.

Moreover, the Fed will make a total of $620 billion available to other central banks, expanding ongoing currency "swap" arrangements with them where dollars are traded for their currencies. That's up from $290 billion previously in such arrangements.

The Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, the Swiss National Bank and the central banks of Denmark, Norway, Australia and Sweden are involved in those swap arrangements.

The move comes as the U.S. financial meltdown's tendrils have ensnared banks in Britain, the Benelux and Germany.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Anybody watch the stockmarket as the latest vote was being shot down? As it got closer to being a "no", the DOW freefalled as much as 700 pts. Crazy.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

^^i agree



> President Bush urged lawmakers to pass the bailout package quickly, saying it was needed to keep the financial crisis from spreading.


we all remember last time bush rushed us into something he didnt really know about.
lets hope that even though things are going wrong in the market right now, that the people with the power to do something dont decide on a bandaid solution.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

That's crazy. I am conflicted. On one hand bailout with taxpayer money for Wall Street fat cats sounds really distasteful, but the alternative is doing nothing and letting the markets crash. Jeez...


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

Jewelz said:


> That's crazy. I am conflicted. On one hand bailout with taxpayer money for Wall Street fat cats sounds really distasteful, but the alternative is doing nothing and letting the markets crash. Jeez...


yeah thats the way i feel as well, i just hope they think it through and dont do anything stupid....


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> That's crazy. I am conflicted. On one hand bailout with taxpayer money for Wall Street fat cats sounds really distasteful, but the alternative is doing nothing and letting the markets crash. Jeez...


That's basically what changed my mind. I'm generally against the bailout, but the alternative is too grave. Our stock market crashing is one thing, but the world's also crashed with us. Europe is also going through a tough real estate period. Looks like a recession is coming. I would argue that this bailout is more like a tourniquet then a band aid.


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

none of em should get sh*t. its the lenders fault for giving people huge mortgages that they could never pay off...and its also fault of the idiots who took the loans


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

the vote failed:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...E48S6BD20080929


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Nick G said:


> the vote failed:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...E48S6BD20080929










I love it.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Liquid said:


> the vote failed:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...E48S6BD20080929










I love it.
[/quote]

You won't love it when people can't get loans and build houses which means your job is in jeopardy.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

diddye said:


> the vote failed:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...E48S6BD20080929










I love it.
[/quote]

You won't love it when people can't get loans and build houses which means your job is in jeopardy.
[/quote]

I do a lot more state work then residential, either way my job will never be in jeopardy. Even if it was I'd be willing to fight through it just to 
squeeze those greedy bastards on both wall street and in Washington dry. Out source our work to foreign countries and now you want the American worker to bail you out?







Go f*ck yourselves, show me some investment in Americans first then maybe we'll talk.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Dow plungers some 700 points.... weee !!!!


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Liquid said:


> the vote failed:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...E48S6BD20080929










I love it.
[/quote]

You won't love it when people can't get loans and build houses which means your job is in jeopardy.
[/quote]

I do a lot more state work then residential, either way my job will never be in jeopardy. Even if it was I'd be willing to fight through it just to 
squeeze those greedy bastards on both wall street and in Washington dry. Out source our work to foreign countries and now you want the American worker to bail you out?:laugh: Go f*ck yourselves, show me some investment in Americans first then maybe we'll talk.
[/quote]

You don't get it. This isn't about Wall Street big wigs and DC. You think the only people investing are millionaires? The majority of America is affected. People are losing jobs and their retirements/401k's(luckily most of us are young). You may have a state job, but don't forget if if gov't funding is cut, that means less building also. Our country marketed this the wrong way. It was called a bailout but it's actually a stimulus package. It wont matter because the re-worked version will definitely be passed. There is no way they'll let the world's economy drop again. For an example of the worlds problems, I think like 15 European banks went bankrupt yesterday.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

diddye said:


> You don't get it. This isn't about Wall Street big wigs and DC. You think the only people investing are millionaires? The majority of America is affected. People are losing jobs and their retirements/401k's(luckily most of us are young). You may have a state job, but don't forget if if gov't funding is cut, that means less building also. Our country marketed this the wrong way. It was called a bailout but it's actually a stimulus package. *It wont matter because the re-worked version will definitely be passed.* There is no way they'll let the world's economy drop again. For an example of the worlds problems, I think like 15 European banks went bankrupt yesterday.


They've gotta find a deal that works.

At the end, I am still hoping that it won't cost us that much. The "bailout" will consist of buying distressed assets that will later be sold. Soooo it's actually possible to make a profit for the taxpayers when it's all said and done. And if we lose, we won't lose the entire $700 billion.

Beats doing nothing and watching our 401K accounts burn while noone can get a loan.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

diddye said:


> the vote failed:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...E48S6BD20080929










I love it.
[/quote]

You won't love it when people can't get loans and build houses which means your job is in jeopardy.
[/quote]

I do a lot more state work then residential, either way my job will never be in jeopardy. Even if it was I'd be willing to fight through it just to 
squeeze those greedy bastards on both wall street and in Washington dry. Out source our work to foreign countries and now you want the American worker to bail you out?:laugh: Go f*ck yourselves, show me some investment in Americans first then maybe we'll talk.
[/quote]

You don't get it. This isn't about Wall Street big wigs and DC. You think the only people investing are millionaires? The majority of America is affected. People are losing jobs and their retirements/401k's(luckily most of us are young). You may have a state job, but don't forget if if gov't funding is cut, that means less building also. Our country marketed this the wrong way. It was called a bailout but it's actually a stimulus package. It wont matter because the re-worked version will definitely be passed. There is no way they'll let the world's economy drop again. For an example of the worlds problems, I think like 15 European banks went bankrupt yesterday.
[/quote]

I do get it, and its funny how their not having this problem in China or Mexico. Like I said take that 700 billion and invest it in Detroit or anywhere in America first, implement a zero tolerance policy for corporations in every state for hiring illegals or out sourcing jobs over seas,
then feel free to use mine and my kids tax dollars to bail out your greedy ass's.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

I suggest you take a look at Mexico and China's economy. Take 5 mins and come back. They ARE having big problems too.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

diddye said:


> I suggest you take a look at Mexico and China's economy. Take 5 mins and come back. They ARE having big problems too.


Its slowed a little, not even close to the situation we're in. I still would rather 700 billion to be invested in Americans not corporations that have closed up shop and sent our jobs over seas. What happened to the reach around ffs







a little lube? something.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Liquid said:


> I suggest you take a look at Mexico and China's economy. Take 5 mins and come back. They ARE having big problems too.


Its slowed a little, not even close to the situation we're in. I still would rather 700 billion to be invested in Americans not corporations that have closed up shop and sent our jobs over seas. What happened to the reach around ffs







a little lube? something.
[/quote]

"A little"? Are you serious? As of today which won't include the blow they'll take in their next session, the Shanghai index is down over 53% YTD. Mexico's slide almost mirrors our drop. Case in point, the money Hispanics are wiring back to their home countries are at lows and many illegals are returning home or considering it b/c they can't find work in the US.

Something to ponder. The day after 9/11, our stock market dropped about 680 pts. Today, it dropped 777.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

My guess is it's slowed because GM and friends are having a little trouble atm paying their employees over in China, Tailand and where ever else they decided to open up shop :laugh: Not my problem and shouldn't be either.



diddye said:


> I suggest you take a look at Mexico and China's economy. Take 5 mins and come back. They ARE having big problems too.


Its slowed a little, not even close to the situation we're in. I still would rather 700 billion to be invested in Americans not corporations that have closed up shop and sent our jobs over seas. What happened to the reach around ffs







a little lube? something.
[/quote]

"A little"? Are you serious? As of today which won't include the blow they'll take in their next session, the Shanghai index is down over 53% YTD. Mexico's slide almost mirrors our drop. Case in point, the money Hispanics are wiring back to their home countries are at lows and many illegals are returning home or considering it b/c they can't find work in the US.

Something to ponder. The day after 9/11, our stock market dropped about 680 pts. Today, it dropped 777.
[/quote]

Chinas economy has slowed 2% to 9% from an all time high of 11% in 2007.

Excuse me, "Economic growth".


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

What the heck are you talking about? You mean their annual economic growth of 9%? If it is, a 7% drop in less then 1 year is enormous. Also, laugh all you want about GM, but its still an American company. American car companies are building new plants in America for American jobs. Liquid, you are one cynical person. Look for the interests of the nation. If the rich go down, the rest of us will also.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

diddye said:


> Liquid, you are one cynical person.


Well at least we got something in common









http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=asia

Sept. 27 2008
"Growth will slow to between 9 percent and 9.5 percent,'' the China Banking Regulatory Commission's Chairman Liu Mingkang said today at the World Economic Forum in eastern China's Tianjin, without specifying the period. China's 2007 economy grew 11.9 percent."


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

diddye said:


> Also, laugh all you want about GM, but its still an American company. American car companies are building new plants in America for American jobs.


wooah wooah wooah..Show me one plant they're supposedly building here. A link, something. In all actuality during this crisis they've been shutting down what little plants we have left in the states before any where else.
The only way they are ever going to open shop back up here, and invest in Americans again is if a federal grant is given to them to do it with alternative fuel technology. Thats after they mandate "all" New cars to have it.

I should say this is all if Obama takes office tho







with McCain all we got is poke and hope drilling.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Not to mention Brazil of all places already has this technology in place and up and running, imagine what it would do for our farms and our economy. Why must every decision we make in this country have to focus around "Big Oil"?


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

Liquid, what alternative fuel are you talking about. If its ethanol, you're an idiot. If its hydrogen, you're an idiot. If its solar power, well you're a few years off.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Lowporkwa said:


> Liquid, what alternative fuel are you talking about. If its ethanol, you're an idiot. If its hydrogen, you're an idiot. If its solar power, well you're a few years off.


Got to be a little bit more specific then that, btw its ethanol. Do explain.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Liquid said:


> Liquid, what alternative fuel are you talking about. If its ethanol, you're an idiot. If its hydrogen, you're an idiot. If its solar power, well you're a few years off.


Got to be a little bit more specific then that, btw its ethanol. Do explain.
[/quote]

Ethanol is screwing up Brazil's land. It is self sufficient but their investment in sugar cane is an environmental disaster. Its like an extreme version of what we're doing with corn.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

diddye said:


> Liquid, what alternative fuel are you talking about. If its ethanol, you're an idiot. If its hydrogen, you're an idiot. If its solar power, well you're a few years off.


Got to be a little bit more specific then that, btw its ethanol. Do explain.
[/quote]

Ethanol is screwing up Brazil's land. It is self sufficient but their investment in sugar cane is an environmental disaster. Its like an extreme version of what we're doing with corn.
[/quote]

how in the world is sugar cane an environmental disaster for anyone other then oil companies. Especially when it makes Brazilians energy self-sufficient









http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/ma...il.theobserver1


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Liquid said:


> Liquid, what alternative fuel are you talking about. If its ethanol, you're an idiot. If its hydrogen, you're an idiot. If its solar power, well you're a few years off.


Got to be a little bit more specific then that, btw its ethanol. Do explain.
[/quote]

Ethanol is screwing up Brazil's land. It is self sufficient but their investment in sugar cane is an environmental disaster. Its like an extreme version of what we're doing with corn.
[/quote]

how in the world is sugar cane an environmental disaster for anyone other then oil companies. Especially when it makes Brazilians energy self-sufficient









http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/ma...il.theobserver1
[/quote]

I don't think that the oil companies would worry about an environmental disaster...and I don't think one could be isolated to affecting only them.

Your article also suggests there's some worry for the environment from Brazil over-planting.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

ChilDawg said:


> Your article also suggests there's some worry for the environment from Brazil over-planting.


I can't see "plants" being even as close of a problem as depending on the middle east for oil or the carbon melt down of the ice caps







.

Btw my "enviroment disaster for oil companies" was sarcasm.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

*"There are environmental benefits too. Bioethanol engines produce 15 per cent fewer carbon dioxide emissions. Critics say this is negated by its relative inefficiency. But Brazilians argue this ignores the impact of growing cane, which sucks carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere." *
quoted from that link.








Either you guys know something I don't know about ethanol or you're f*cking retarded and wasting my time. Which is it.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Brazil's deforestation is pretty bad since they clear a lot of land to make room for sugar cane. Sugar cane is also a resource heavy crop and requires a lot of water. The runoff, loss of habitat for animals(ie. rain forests), and lack of biodiversity is a concern for environmentalists. Those people are already poor and are affected kind of how like Mexicans and the US corn prices. Is it a better alternative to importing oil? I don't know, but we're already off topic so I'll stop here.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

diddye said:


> Brazil's deforestation is pretty bad since they clear a lot of land to make room for sugar cane. Sugar cane is also a resource heavy crop and requires a lot of water. The runoff, loss of habitat for animals(ie. rain forests), and lack of biodiversity is a concern for environmentalists. Those people are already poor and are affected kind of how like Mexicans and the US corn prices. Is it a better alternative to importing oil? I don't know, but we're already off topic so I'll stop here.


you kidding me? their economy is booming right now because of the choice to go with ethanol. The only difference is your coffee and cocain is a bit more expensive because of the numerous fields they cleared to grow suger cane. And please save 'save the tree's stretch" for someone who cares, especially when they're replaced with plants that suck up carbon.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050825/ful...ws050822-7.html

food for thought.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

as many farms that have been shutdown in the states how would "forests" even be an issue anyway.


----------



## irishfan 689 (Aug 11, 2004)

Liquid said:


> Brazil's deforestation is pretty bad since they clear a lot of land to make room for sugar cane. Sugar cane is also a resource heavy crop and requires a lot of water. The runoff, loss of habitat for animals(ie. rain forests), and lack of biodiversity is a concern for environmentalists. Those people are already poor and are affected kind of how like Mexicans and the US corn prices. Is it a better alternative to importing oil? I don't know, but we're already off topic so I'll stop here.


you kidding me? their economy is booming right now because of the choice to go with ethanol. The only difference is your coffee and cocain is a bit more expensive because of the numerous fields they cleared to grow suger cane. *And please save 'save the tree's stretch" for someone who cares*, especially when they're replaced with plants that suck up carbon.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050825/ful...ws050822-7.html

food for thought.
[/quote]

It just so happens that a large amount of people DO care about the trees, and you aren't the one making decisions for our country, so this is a legitimate aspect of the argument whether you like it or not.

*Edit: And this is coming from someone that supports ethanol as a fuel source; I'm just pointing out the fact that you can't disregard other people's arguments because you don't care for something.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Liquid said:


> Brazil's deforestation is pretty bad since they clear a lot of land to make room for sugar cane. Sugar cane is also a resource heavy crop and requires a lot of water. The runoff, loss of habitat for animals(ie. rain forests), and lack of biodiversity is a concern for environmentalists. Those people are already poor and are affected kind of how like Mexicans and the US corn prices. Is it a better alternative to importing oil? I don't know, but we're already off topic so I'll stop here.


you kidding me? their economy is booming right now because of the choice to go with ethanol. The only difference is your coffee and cocain is a bit more expensive because of the numerous fields they cleared to grow suger cane. And please save 'save the tree's stretch" for someone who cares, especially when they're replaced with plants that suck up carbon.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050825/ful...ws050822-7.html

food for thought.
[/quote]

How about the large amount by which the biodiversity of the area is reduced by this clear-cutting and replacing with a non-equivalent crop? Is that in that article?


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Your nature.com like doesn't add to your argument. All it says is that giving a tree more carbon dioxide wont make it suck up more. AND? I'll break it down for you. All plants suck up carbon dioxide. Each plant sucks up different amounts as well as in different stages as it grows. I'm done replying to you. I counter your post and you move on to a new one without commenting on the previous one. We went from this economy to how you hate oil/Brazil to how plants suck air.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

irishfan 689 said:


> Your nature.com like doesn't add to your argument. All it says is that giving a tree more carbon dioxide wont make it suck up more. AND? I'll break it down for you. All plants suck up carbon dioxide. Each plant sucks up different amounts as well as in different stages as it grows. I'm done replying to you. I counter your post and you move on to a new one without commenting on the previous one. We went from this economy to how you hate oil/Brazil to how plants suck air.


yeah if this is your logic I'd be done to. Bottom line invest that 700 billion on American industry then talk about a bail out.


----------



## irishfan 689 (Aug 11, 2004)

^^Hopefully you posted that before you saw my edit, because I was playing the devil's advocate. If a farm is not in use, then I'm all for growing some potential fuel. But you can't just say "I don't care about trees, so your argument is irrelevant."


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Our oil reserves hold 3% percent of the worlds oil demand. We consume 25%. It'd be nice if we could see what the supply and demand would look like if we put every single farm that has been shut down back to work producing ethanol. Either way ethanol would still be a lot cheaper to import then oil I don't care what bush tells you







.


----------



## Doktordet (Sep 22, 2006)

ok...bailout has been thrown out the window...now we are all really fucked.


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

Liquid, don't you ever call me stupid, or anyone that argues against ethanol retarded. You purely don't know how impossible it would be to implement the infrastructure required to support any sort of viable ethanol alternative. If one wanted to purely replace oil with ethanol, 97% of the united states would have to be covered in corn fields. Simply put, you need a lot of corn to make a little bit of ethanol. Also, in accordance with current technology, it takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than you get out of that gallon of ethanol. It's not an efficient process and such its incredibly expensive. That is why there has never been a serious market for this technology, its just not viable. There really is no replacement for oil besides for cheap solar cells in the near future. Oil is driving the economy and it makes no sense to not drill for it and refine it as quickly as possible, until solar technology catches up and eventually replaces it.

Now, trust me, I've spent considerable time in the past trying to synthesize a compound that replicates the light harvesting complex of chlorophyll, and it really is not too far off. That, along with recent advances in polymeric materials, specifically dendrimer chemistry have really proven that the technology is legit, and not far off.

If you care to have a real convo, thats fine, but spewing your leftist propaganda is very annoying.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

Lowporkwa said:


> Liquid, don't you ever call me stupid, or anyone that argues against ethanol retarded. You purely don't know how impossible it would be to implement the infrastructure required to support any sort of viable ethanol alternative. If one wanted to purely replace oil with ethanol, 97% of the united states would have to be covered in corn fields. Simply put, you need a lot of corn to make a little bit of ethanol. Also, in accordance with current technology, it takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than you get out of that gallon of ethanol. It's not an efficient process and such its incredibly expensive. That is why there has never been a serious market for this technology, its just not viable. There really is no replacement for oil besides for cheap solar cells in the near future. Oil is driving the economy and it makes no sense to not drill for it and refine it as quickly as possible, until solar technology catches up and eventually replaces it.
> 
> Now, trust me, I've spent considerable time in the past trying to synthesize a compound that replicates the light harvesting complex of chlorophyll, and it really is not too far off. That, along with recent advances in polymeric materials, specifically dendrimer chemistry have really proven that the technology is legit, and not far off.
> 
> If you care to have a real convo, thats fine, but spewing your leftist propaganda is very annoying.


i read about an alternative somewhere that was ethanol derived from algae grown in gelpacks that hang in greehouses. theoretically 1/10th of the land in New Mexico (uninhabited desert) would be enough to supply the entire country with energy. unfortunately i don't now where i read it, what it was called, or who was talking about it...but there you have it.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

corn ethonal is not only NOT a viable alternative fuel its costing every tax payer and actually reducing the effeciency of your car. its a joke and finally the govt is seeing the light and slowly gettign off the corn ethonal band wagon...


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> corn ethonal is not only NOT a viable alternative fuel its costing every tax payer and actually reducing the effeciency of your car. its a joke and finally the govt is seeing the light and slowly gettign off the corn ethonal band wagon...


Sugar cane ethanol is supposed to be a lot more efficient then corn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/polit...anol.html?fta=y

*"Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona. While both presidential candidates emphasize the need for the United States to achieve "energy security" while also slowing down the carbon emissions that are believed to contribute to global warming, they offer sharply different visions of the role that ethanol, which can be made from a variety of organic materials, should play in those efforts.

Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce."*

and lowpork, I just call it like I see it buddy..You telling me it can't be done, mean while brazilians have been energy independent and self-sufficient since the 80's. You want to know why we "can't" do it? Because Reagan and Both big oil Bush's told you we can't do it, but what we can do is send American lives over to die not once but twice for oil that is now being outbid on by the chinese and the rest of the world and spend a few trillion dollars in the process.







what a f*cking waste.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

OK, not to interrupt your guys's ethanol-buggery..

It's funny how this bailout is making some strange bedfellows

Now far-left liberals like Michael Moore are siding with congressional GOP, he just released an article opposing the bailout

So it's people on the far left who think Wall Street are a bunch of crooks and most of congressional Republicans vs. Bush, McCain and most of congressional Dems.


----------



## Dr. Giggles (Oct 18, 2003)

Doktordet said:


> ok...bailout has been thrown out the window...now we are all really fucked.


It was definately ugly today. Actually the last 90 days have been ugly. Congress needs to fix this sh*t mess and than jail the scumbags.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> OK, not to interrupt your guys's ethanol-buggery..
> 
> It's funny how this bailout is making some strange bedfellows
> 
> ...


From what I hear its because most are standing by their constituaries and if this map is any reflection of the election its looking like a possible land slide for Obama in November.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Liquid said:


> OK, not to interrupt your guys's ethanol-buggery..
> 
> It's funny how this bailout is making some strange bedfellows
> 
> ...


From what I here its because most are standing by their constituaries and if this map is any reflection of the election its looking like a possible land slide for Obama in November.
[/quote]

Yeah but the thing is most people were initially strongly opposed to the bailout - but now that the Dow had the biggest drop day in history, some are bound to get scared shitless. I bet something will get done eventually. It's really a lose-lose situation...


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> OK, not to interrupt your guys's ethanol-buggery..
> 
> It's funny how this bailout is making some strange bedfellows
> 
> ...


From what I here its because most are standing by their constituaries and if this map is any reflection of the election its looking like a possible land slide for Obama in November.
[/quote]

Yeah but the thing is most people were initially strongly opposed to the bailout - but now that the Dow had the biggest drop day in history, some are bound to get scared shitless. I bet something will get done eventually. It's really a lose-lose situation...
[/quote]

all about principle now, f*ck em.. Depending how much you lost you might be sol atm. As soon as this started a few years ago I started tucking my money away in bonds, If I were you I'd pack a big lunch and from here on out do the same


----------



## Mettle (Dec 29, 2003)

I hope I don't lose my job in this mess.. fingers crossed.









Man are we ever a long way removed from just a decade ago. I never thought I'd be alive to see something like this. It really wakes me up and makes me want to manage my money better. And by manage my money, I mean buy a secure lockbox, fill it with my savings and burry it under my house. But the big question is, do I buy currency and which one or do I just go out and buy gold?


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

Mettle said:


> I hope I don't lose my job in this mess.. fingers crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think its too late to buy gold, but who knows I'm no expert.

I think in the 80s there was a pretty big recession and we got out of it, so as long as you were responsible financially you should be okay. Might be a few rough years but nothing were you gotta put up barb wire around your yard and shoot anything that comes close.


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

Liquid said:


> corn ethonal is not only NOT a viable alternative fuel its costing every tax payer and actually reducing the effeciency of your car. its a joke and finally the govt is seeing the light and slowly gettign off the corn ethonal band wagon...


Sugar cane ethanol is supposed to be a lot more efficient then corn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/polit...anol.html?fta=y

*"Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona. While both presidential candidates emphasize the need for the United States to achieve "energy security" while also slowing down the carbon emissions that are believed to contribute to global warming, they offer sharply different visions of the role that ethanol, which can be made from a variety of organic materials, should play in those efforts.

Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce."*

and lowpork, I just call it like I see it buddy..You telling me it can't be done, mean while brazilians have been energy independent and self-sufficient since the 80's. You want to know why we "can't" do it? Because Reagan and Both big oil Bush's told you we can't do it, but what we can do is send American lives over to die not once but twice for oil that is now being outbid on by the chinese and the rest of the world and spend a few trillion dollars in the process.







what a f*cking waste.
[/quote]

Yes, I am telling you it can't be done. You cannot even begin to compare the Brazilian market for oil an the American market. First off, there are millions upon millions upon millions more people driving and consuming oil in America. We use so much more than Brazil that a fair comparison can't be done. Second off, Sugar Cane needs a climate that barely any of the United States can provide. So you want us to completely replace our source of energy with Sugar Cane ethanol, which we can barely grow in any of our own land? Doesn't that just set us up to begin sending our money to other countries again to buy their ethanol?

And Ethanol is Ethanol, its the same molecule no matter where it comes from. Sugar Cane may be a more efficient way to make it, but it's still the same product.

And yes, i'm saying it cant be done. I, unlike you, have actually done significant research on the subject.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

instead of ethanol, they should use the same corn crops to make oil, convert every car to diesel, or even just a bunch of them ... and we have a renewable energy source to power.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Lowporkwa said:


> corn ethonal is not only NOT a viable alternative fuel its costing every tax payer and actually reducing the effeciency of your car. its a joke and finally the govt is seeing the light and slowly gettign off the corn ethonal band wagon...


Sugar cane ethanol is supposed to be a lot more efficient then corn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/polit...anol.html?fta=y

*"Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona. While both presidential candidates emphasize the need for the United States to achieve "energy security" while also slowing down the carbon emissions that are believed to contribute to global warming, they offer sharply different visions of the role that ethanol, which can be made from a variety of organic materials, should play in those efforts.

Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce."*

and lowpork, I just call it like I see it buddy..You telling me it can't be done, mean while brazilians have been energy independent and self-sufficient since the 80's. You want to know why we "can't" do it? Because Reagan and Both big oil Bush's told you we can't do it, but what we can do is send American lives over to die not once but twice for oil that is now being outbid on by the chinese and the rest of the world and spend a few trillion dollars in the process.







what a f*cking waste.
[/quote]

Yes, I am telling you it can't be done. You cannot even begin to compare the Brazilian market for oil an the American market. First off, there are millions upon millions upon millions more people driving and consuming oil in America. We use so much more than Brazil that a fair comparison can't be done. Second off, Sugar Cane needs a climate that barely any of the United States can provide. So you want us to completely replace our source of energy with Sugar Cane ethanol, which we can barely grow in any of our own land? Doesn't that just set us up to begin sending our money to other countries again to buy their ethanol?

And Ethanol is Ethanol, its the same molecule no matter where it comes from. Sugar Cane may be a more efficient way to make it, but it's still the same product.

And yes, i'm saying it cant be done. I, unlike you, have actually done significant research on the subject.
[/quote]

Again our oil reserves hold *3%* of the worlds demand, we as a nation demand *25%* of the worlds demand and you're saying you did a tally and your tally told you if we filled every single farm thats been shut down since the 80's with ethanol plants. Oil would still be in our economical interest? I'd like to see the numbers please. Especially with current gas hikes, dumb ass bush himself recently admitted importing sugar base ethanol to be a hell of a lot cheaper then importing oil. Per barrel of imported oil, we're paying what? $126.? The EIA says prices for crude oil would need to fall below *$50.* per barrel for cellulosic ethanol not to be cost competitive. Do you honestly believe we will ever be paying under $50. per barrel of crude oil again? Apparently neither Bush nor Mccain thinks so either. Its just too bad they've waited for the last minute on the account of "big oil" to take this serious.

http://www.v-brazil.com/science/ethanol/bush-brazil.html

http://www.reason.com/news/show/123464.html

You're saying your "







significant research" says it can't be done, mean while Brazil of all places has been doing it for the last 30 years and every single politician is saying we might not have a choice anymore, so much for Mccain to now back the lift of the ethanol tariff that was put in place by Reagan.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Mettle said:


> I hope I don't lose my job in this mess.. fingers crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


$50. a week in a safety deposit box or wall safe is not a bad habit


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

btw you can count on gas to go back up to $4.50 /$5.00 per gal after the election. Just like it went back up after the house vote. All this is just another tactic by the White House to temporarily contain all the damage thats been done for the last 8 years in time for the election. What surprises me is that the people are actually getting tired of the corporate rape being backed by the White House. Mccain likes to call the "Bail Out" "The Rescue"







. Well that vote against the so called "Rescue" was a victory for Americans.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)




----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Liquid, you've turned into baddfish


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

ironic...the bill didn't pass and the stock market didn't melt into nothing like people said it would....


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

It did melt. It's bouncing back because 
1. They're sure they'll pass the reworked one b/c they can't let it drop like yesterday again
2. Stocks dropped so much that they're relatively cheap.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

diddye said:


> It did melt. It's bouncing back because
> 1. They're sure they'll pass the reworked one b/c they can't let it drop like yesterday again
> 2. Stocks dropped so much that they're relatively cheap.


it dropped 7%! that's the worst drop since...2001?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Boobah said:


> It did melt. It's bouncing back because
> 1. They're sure they'll pass the reworked one b/c they can't let it drop like yesterday again
> 2. Stocks dropped so much that they're relatively cheap.


it dropped 7%! that's the worst drop since...2001?
[/quote]

It was the worst drop in Dow's history


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Worst since the day after 9/11


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

diddye said:


> Worst since the day after 9/11


Oh yeah, now I am looking at Google News and you may be right... Weird, because the "worst day ever" was the headline they showed yesterday on CNN.com.


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

Hey quick question...

Does anybody here buy T-Bills?
I was thinking about maybe getting into that rather then a IRA or 401K...


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> Worst since the day after 9/11


Oh yeah, now I am looking at Google News and you may be right... Weird, because the "worst day ever" was the headline they showed yesterday on CNN.com.
[/quote]

Maybe I worded it wrong. The worst day in the stock market was the day after 9/11 where it dropped 680 pts. Yesterday, the market crushed that number by dropping 777 pts. In both instances, there were large rallies afterwards.


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

whats interesting about this is that Mccain now looks like an ass because he suspended his campaign to lobby support for the bill, and still the vote was basically killed by the people he was lobbying to.
i mean, maybe im only looking at the good in the situation, but here is the story:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/30/bai...ates/index.html


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Nick G said:


> whats interesting about this is that Mccain now looks like an ass because he suspended his campaign to lobby support for the bill, and still the vote was basically killed by the people he was lobbying to.
> i mean, maybe im only looking at the good in the situation, but here is the story:
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/30/bai...ates/index.html


Dubya was 10 times the campaigner McCain is. Difference is Bush was smart enough to know that he ISN'T smart enough and knew when to get out of the way let people who know what they're doing call the shots. McCain thinks he's smarter than everyone else which is why it's such a trainwreck


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Article for those who think bill is for "wall street" only

For those who don't have a good understanding about what this is all about:

"no one bothered to spend enough time explaining to Americans how the proposal would work, leading many Americans to see it as simply a handout for Wall Street fat cats."

"The risk we run now is we will have a much deeper and more protracted recession than what we had before,"


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Liquid said:


> *btw you can count on gas to go back up to $4.50 /$5.00 per gal after the election.* Just like it went back up after the house vote. All this is just another tactic by the White House to temporarily contain all the damage thats been done for the last 8 years in time for the election. What surprises me is that the people are actually getting tired of the corporate rape being backed by the White House. Mccain likes to call the "Bail Out" "The Rescue"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


while you may eb correct that the price might move back up it will not go that high again until next spring, it may shoot up agin around thanks giving but for the most part the price stay lower during teh winter months when people travel less and with all of the concern about the economy people are being more conservative so the ovrall demand is down plusthey should be just about back to normal out put down south after Ike.

i really have a hard time taking any of those two face politicains seriously at this point, they all take money from corporations for their campaigns and entertain the lobbiests to some extent some more then others so for them to get out there and claim they are against the excess of wall street is a steaming hot load. they are not far behind wall street in relating to the average american worker.


----------



## Mettle (Dec 29, 2003)

Liquid said:


> I hope I don't lose my job in this mess.. fingers crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


$50. a week in a safety deposit box or wall safe is not a bad habit








[/quote]

I don't know that I'd want a safety deposit box at this point. Banks cannot be trusted.

I was watching some global news tonight.. this is happening all over the world. Issues in England, a bank in Belgium just got a multi-billion dollar bail out, issues in Australia, Germany, etc etc.

It's awesome how rich people always f*ck things up for the rest of us. Well, if any try and hussle in on my gutter that I'll be surfing Pfury from, ya know after their fall from grace.. well.. I'll beat them in the face with that laptop. Yeah. Sounds like a plan.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

diddye said:


> Article for those who think bill is for "wall street" only
> 
> For those who don't have a good understanding about what this is all about:
> 
> ...


before what? this retarded proposal? we dont need a parachute for these companies, we need a complete anhialation of what has been happening and we need a REAL market...this market has been manipulated for far too long.


----------

