PDA

View Full Version : Economics CNBC tonight...scary sh*t.


memyselfI
09-15-2008, 08:49 PM
Anyone watching CNBC tonight. They are on live because of Moody's downgrading AIG. Analyst after analyst is predicting 'financial armegeddon' tomorrow.

Today was bad enough but tomorrow could be worse. :eek:

HolmeZz
09-15-2008, 08:51 PM
McCain '08!

THE FUNDAMENTALS R STRONG

SNR
09-15-2008, 08:53 PM
McCain '08!

THE FUNDAMENTALS R STRONGWhat's Obama going to do about this, then?

It appears that we could have the smartest man to ever live as president and the US would still be up shit creek concerning the economy

Programmer
09-15-2008, 08:54 PM
McCain '08!

THE FUNDAMENTALS R STRONG

How does McCain get credit for this?

Mr. Flopnuts
09-15-2008, 08:54 PM
What's Obama going to do about this, then?

It appears that we could have the smartest man to ever live as president and the US would still be up shit creek concerning the economy

Never take away someone's opportunity to pimp their herder.

memyselfI
09-15-2008, 09:03 PM
Standard and Poor* cut AIG too.



*Freudian slip.

HolmeZz
09-15-2008, 09:06 PM
How does McCain get credit for this?

I was mocking the fact that McCain today re-iterated that there's really nothing wrong and that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong".

jiveturkey
09-15-2008, 09:06 PM
I keep hearing the doom and gloom but what actually happens after all of this? Tighter regulation? New regulations? One company owns everything?

I am having a hard time figuring out how this affects me.

banyon
09-15-2008, 09:07 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kqGWTh_NZ-0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kqGWTh_NZ-0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

banyon
09-15-2008, 09:11 PM
I keep hearing the doom and gloom but what actually happens after all of this? Tighter regulation? New regulations? One company owns everything?

I am having a hard time figuring out how this affects me.

What's your situation financially?

Logical
09-15-2008, 09:11 PM
What's Obama going to do about this, then?

It appears that we could have the smartest man to ever live as president and the US would still be up shit creek concerning the economy
Your point is valid except this be a world wide depression not just the US

Programmer
09-15-2008, 09:14 PM
I was mocking the fact that McCain today re-iterated that there's really nothing wrong and that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong".

Only time will tell if you are right or wrong.

Friendo
09-15-2008, 09:15 PM
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/

Logical
09-15-2008, 09:17 PM
I keep hearing the doom and gloom but what actually happens after all of this? Tighter regulation? New regulations? One company owns everything?

I am having a hard time figuring out how this affects me.
I suggest you read about 1929 and the 1930s should pretty much cover it, only on a worldwide scale.

memyselfI
09-15-2008, 09:18 PM
If we could turn back time...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E2DB1F3BF936A35752C1A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Monday, September 15, 2008

CONGRESS PASSES WIDE-RANGING BILL EASING BANK LAWS

By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: November 5, 1999

Congress approved landmark legislation today that opens the door for a new era on Wall Street in which commercial banks, securities houses and insurers will find it easier and cheaper to enter one another's businesses.

The measure, considered by many the most important banking legislation in 66 years, was approved in the Senate by a vote of 90 to 8 and in the House tonight by 362 to 57. The bill will now be sent to the president, who is expected to sign it, aides said. It would become one of the most significant achievements this year by the White House and the Republicans leading the 106th Congress.

''Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century,'' Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said. ''This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy.''

The decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 provoked dire warnings from a handful of dissenters that the deregulation of Wall Street would someday wreak havoc on the nation's financial system. The original idea behind Glass-Steagall was that separation between bankers and brokers would reduce the potential conflicts of interest that were thought to have contributed to the speculative stock frenzy before the Depression.

Today's action followed a rich Congressional debate about the history of finance in America in this century, the causes of the banking crisis of the 1930's, the globalization of banking and the future of the nation's economy.

Administration officials and many Republicans and Democrats said the measure would save consumers billions of dollars and was necessary to keep up with trends in both domestic and international banking. Some institutions, like Citigroup, already have banking, insurance and securities arms but could have been forced to divest their insurance underwriting under existing law. Many foreign banks already enjoy the ability to enter the securities and insurance industries.

''The world changes, and we have to change with it,'' said Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who wrote the law that will bear his name along with the two other main Republican sponsors, Representative Jim Leach of Iowa and Representative Thomas J. Bliley Jr. of Virginia. ''We have a new century coming, and we have an opportunity to dominate that century the same way we dominated this century. Glass-Steagall, in the midst of the Great Depression, came at a time when the thinking was that the government was the answer. In this era of economic prosperity, we have decided that freedom is the answer.''

In the House debate, Mr. Leach said, ''This is a historic day. The landscape for delivery of financial services will now surely shift.''

But consumer groups and civil rights advocates criticized the legislation for being a sop to the nation's biggest financial institutions. They say that it fails to protect the privacy interests of consumers and community lending standards for the disadvantaged and that it will create more problems than it solves.

The opponents of the measure gloomily predicted that by unshackling banks and enabling them to move more freely into new kinds of financial activities, the new law could lead to an economic crisis down the road when the marketplace is no longer growing briskly.

''I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010,'' said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. ''I wasn't around during the 1930's or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980's when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.''

Senator Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, said that Congress had ''seemed determined to unlearn the lessons from our past mistakes.''

''Scores of banks failed in the Great Depression as a result of unsound banking practices, and their failure only deepened the crisis,'' Mr. Wellstone said. ''Glass-Steagall was intended to protect our financial system by insulating commercial banking from other forms of risk. It was one of several stabilizers designed to keep a similar tragedy from recurring. Now Congress is about to repeal that economic stabilizer without putting any comparable safeguard in its place.''

Supporters of the legislation rejected those arguments. They responded that historians and economists have concluded that the Glass-Steagall Act was not the correct response to the banking crisis because it was the failure of the Federal Reserve in carrying out monetary policy, not speculation in the stock market, that caused the collapse of 11,000 banks. If anything, the supporters said, the new law will give financial companies the ability to diversify and therefore reduce their risks. The new law, they said, will also give regulators new tools to supervise shaky institutions.

''The concerns that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown,'' said Senator Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska.

Others said the legislation was essential for the future leadership of the American banking system.

''If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world,'' said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. ''There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive.''

But other lawmakers criticized the provisions of the legislation aimed at discouraging community groups from pressing banks to make more loans to the disadvantaged. Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, said during the House debate that the legislation was ''mean-spirited in the way it had tried to undermine the Community Reinvestment Act.'' And Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, said it was ironic that while the legislation was deregulating financial services, it had begun a new system of onerous regulation on community advocates.

Many experts predict that, even though the legislation has been trailing market trends that have begun to see the cross-ownership of banks, securities firms and insurers, the new law is certain to lead to a wave of large financial mergers.

The White House has estimated the legislation could save consumers as much as $18 billion a year as new financial conglomerates gain economies of scale and cut costs.

Other experts have disputed those estimates as overly optimistic, and said that the bulk of any profits seen from the deregulation of financial services would be returned not to customers but to shareholders.

These are some of the key provisions of the legislation:

*Banks will be able to affiliate with insurance companies and securities concerns with far fewer restrictions than in the past.

*The legislation preserves the regulatory structure in Washington and gives the Federal Reserve and the Office of Comptroller of the Currency roles in regulating new financial conglomerates. The Securities and Exchange Commission will oversee securities operations at any bank, and the states will continue to regulate insurance.

*It will be more difficult for industrial companies to control a bank. The measure closes a loophole that had permitted a number of commercial enterprises to open savings associations known as unitary thrifts.

One Republican Senator, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, voted against the legislation. He was joined by seven Democrats: Barbara Boxer of California, Richard H. Bryan of Nevada, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Wellstone.

In the House, 155 Democrats and 207 Republicans voted for the measure, while 51 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 independent opposed it. Fifteen members did not vote.

Tucked away in the legislation is a provision that some experts today warned could cost insurance policyholders as much as $50 billion. The provision would allow mutual insurance companies to move to other states to avoid payments they would otherwise owe policyholders as they reorganize their corporate structure. Many states, including New York and New Jersey, do not allow such relocations without the consent of the insurer's domicile state. But the legislation before Congress would pre-empt the states.

Both the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and the Prudential Life Insurance Company are in the midst of reorganizing into stock-based corporations that are requiring them to pay billions of dollars to policyholders from years of accumulated surplus. In exchange, the policyholders give up their ownership in the mutual insurance company.

The legislation would permit any mutual insurance company to avoid making surplus payments to policyholders by simply moving to states with more permissive laws and setting up a hybrid corporate structure known as a mutual holding company.

The provision was inserted by Representative Bliley at the urging of a trade association. It attracted little opposition because it was attached to a provision that forbids insurers from discriminating against domestic-violence victims.

In a letter sent to Congress this week, Mr. Summers said that the provision ''could allow insurance companies to avoid state law protecting policyholders, enriching insiders at the expense of consumers.''

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-15-2008, 09:20 PM
Good to see that Feingold and Wellstone were intelligent enough to vote against it.

jiveturkey
09-15-2008, 09:21 PM
What's your situation financially?Secure for the time being. 6 months of savings, limited debt (outside of the house and 1 or our cars).

I do however own a small biz and all of this bad news makes me a little nervous. The recruiting world just hasn't slowed down though.

dirk digler
09-15-2008, 09:22 PM
These were the smart ones the rest = idiots


One Republican Senator, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, voted against the legislation. He was joined by seven Democrats: Barbara Boxer of California, Richard H. Bryan of Nevada, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Wellstone.

jiveturkey
09-15-2008, 09:22 PM
Holy piss! That seems like the dumbest bit of deregulation yet.

Will congress flip it back?

eazyb81
09-15-2008, 09:24 PM
I was mocking the fact that McCain today re-iterated that there's really nothing wrong and that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong".

The bottom line is that virtually all politicians, whether left or right, are essentially ignorant when it comes to macroeconomics and high finance.

Nancy Pelosi's piece on CNBC tonight was absolutely embarrassing and a bit frightening considering her current political status.

The guys running this stuff are basically above any political party, as no one in politics understands what they're doing enough to do anything.

CHIEF4EVER
09-15-2008, 09:26 PM
Tucked away in the legislation is a provision that some experts today warned could cost insurance policyholders as much as $50 billion. The provision would allow mutual insurance companies to move to other states to avoid payments they would otherwise owe policyholders as they reorganize their corporate structure. Many states, including New York and New Jersey, do not allow such relocations without the consent of the insurer's domicile state. But the legislation before Congress would pre-empt the states.

:spock:

SNR
09-15-2008, 09:26 PM
W00t! Byron Dorgan! North Dakota represent!

memyselfI
09-15-2008, 09:27 PM
These were the smart ones the rest = idiots

And correct me if I'm wrong but two of them are dead now, Mikulski and Wellstone.

Edit, Mikulski is still with us. RIP Wellstone.

dirk digler
09-15-2008, 09:31 PM
And correct me if I'm wrong but two of them are dead now, Mikulski and Wellstone.

Edit, Mikulski is still with us. RIP Wellstone.

It is somewhat surprising to see only 1 Republican but 7 Democrats opposing this bill. It is too bad the other Dems and Republicans didn't wise up.

Also the more I learn about Russ Feingold the more I like. He always seems to end up on the right side of the issue maybe he should run for POTUS

banyon
09-15-2008, 09:31 PM
Secure for the time being. 6 months of savings, limited debt (outside of the house and 1 or our cars).

I do however own a small biz and all of this bad news makes me a little nervous. The recruiting world just hasn't slowed down though.

Unless your business is a non-essential type good/service that people won't buy in tough times, or your loans are adjustable and payments get adjusted too high, then you may make it. Of course if you are living on the margins, the ensuing inflation will deplete the value of your savings and your income.
If the inflation gets high enough though maybe your loans can get paid off easy and you'll be able to nab up some real estate dirt cheap while everyone else is losing their shirt.

Just a hobbyist's guess at this point though.

jiveturkey
09-15-2008, 09:39 PM
Unless your business is a non-essential type good/service that people won't buy in tough times, or your loans are adjustable and payments get adjusted too high, then you may make it. Of course if you are living on the margins, the ensuing inflation will deplete the value of your savings and your income.
If the inflation gets high enough though maybe your loans can get paid off easy and you'll be able to nab up some real estate dirt cheap while everyone else is losing their shirt.

Just a hobbyist's guess at this point though.The loans aren't adjustable but the biz is headhunting. If employment takes a huge dump I would certainly be in trouble. I survived the 2001 employment dump so I'm hope that I can survive another dump.

How would inflation getting high enough allow me to pay off my loans more easily?

MaxFects
09-15-2008, 09:44 PM
What's Obama going to do about this, then?

It appears that we could have the smartest man to ever live as president and the US would still be up shit creek concerning the economy

leadership makes a huge difference

J Diddy
09-15-2008, 09:45 PM
thats just dumb

how so?

banyon
09-15-2008, 09:47 PM
How would inflation getting high enough allow me to pay off my loans more easily?

If your loans' interest rates aren't directly tied to the inflation rate (most ARM's have a cap max rate), then the principal of the loan won't change with inflation. Your income, particularly if you run your own business and aren't in a set salary position will at least increase nominally. In other words even though it will take you more paper money to buy the same groceries, fuel, etc, you will likely receive more of it (with a high rate), but the principal of your loan will always stay constant. It will take less real value to buy off your loan.

Hope I was clear enough, don't know that I've ever tried to explain this phenomenon before.

J Diddy
09-15-2008, 09:47 PM
leadership makes a huge difference

to a degree, but if banks are failing there's something wrong

If they don't know what's wrong how can they know how to fix it

Logical
09-15-2008, 09:47 PM
<object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kqGWTh_NZ-0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>
Ron Paul makes McCain look like another Sarah Palin (I mean idiot).:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:

jiveturkey
09-15-2008, 09:48 PM
If your loans' interest rates aren't directly tied to the inflation rate (most ARM's have a cap max rate), then the principal of the loan won't change with inflation. Your income, particularly if you run your own business and aren't in a set salary position will at least increase nominally. In other words even though it will take you more paper money to buy the same groceries, fuel, etc, you will likely receive more of it (with a high rate), but the principal of your loan will always stay constant. It will take less real value to buy off your loan.

Hope I was clear enough, don't know that I've ever tried to explain this phenomenon before.Perfectly clear.

Thanks

Now will congress roll back this stupid piece of deregulation?

banyon
09-15-2008, 09:51 PM
:spock:

Some of the insurance industry is just outright thievery these days.

(no offense alnorth)

Logical
09-15-2008, 10:10 PM
Wait McCain says we are better off

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tyJGl_l_6E4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tyJGl_l_6E4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Amnorix
09-15-2008, 10:14 PM
What's Obama going to do about this, then?

It appears that we could have the smartest man to ever live as president and the US would still be up shit creek concerning the economy

And that would be thanks to which President?

banyon
09-15-2008, 10:23 PM
2007

At Lehman, compensation rose 9.5 per cent to $9.5 billion US, with bonuses accounting for an estimated $5.7 billion US. The firm booked losses last week but managed to offset most of its mortgage writedowns and beat Wall Street expectations. Head count at the investment bank rose by 10 per cent this year

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/12/21/wallstreetbonus.html

Jayhawkerman2001
09-15-2008, 10:36 PM
ok, i have prety much the same question. how will this affect me? My wife and i at this time are in school and don't have any debt other than student loans. She finishes with her masters in May and I still have a little while to go.(got started late and taking it very slow)

banyon
09-15-2008, 10:43 PM
ok, i have prety much the same question. how will this affect me? My wife and i at this time are in school and don't have any debt other than student loans. She finishes with her masters in May and I still have a little while to go.(got started late and taking it very slow)

Do you have assets?

Jayhawkerman2001
09-15-2008, 10:49 PM
Do you have assets?

as in like a house, car and whatnot? we're still fairly young and havent had a chance to establish ourselves yet.

SBK
09-15-2008, 10:50 PM
This mess was caused by greed. It came from the very tops of the highest buildings all the way down to the people buying who couldn't afford it. Everyone in between, the bankers, politicians, investors, salesman, brokers etc. profited from it, and thought it would never end.

Well it did.

This mess isn't the fault of either party, or of any politicians. It was greed, and right now things are being corrected. Learn from them, profit from them, and recognize the next time greed takes over the market (so you can get your money out long before the correction happens).

I've heard Warren Buffet say that when everyone is selling it's time to buy, and when everyone is buying it's time to sell. Very difficult to do, but it's exactly right. It's now the time to buy, but only if you really, really know what you're doing......

banyon
09-15-2008, 10:51 PM
as in like a house, car and whatnot? we're still fairly young and havent had a chance to establish ourselves yet.

So you don't even have a 401k or a savings account?

Uncle_Ted
09-15-2008, 10:56 PM
Financial meltdown ... brought to you by the same douchebags who think they are so brilliant they are worth $50 million a year in salary and bonuses. I hope the regulators jam their golden parachutes up their collective asses.

In case you couldn't guess ... yeah, I think most Wall Street CEO's are grossly over compensated.

HMc
09-15-2008, 11:02 PM
Anyone with more than 100,000 in liquid assets might want to think about buying gold.

Like, actual physical gold.

Seriously.

banyon
09-15-2008, 11:06 PM
The Nikkei is down 5% already for Tuesday.

banyon
09-15-2008, 11:08 PM
China is lowering reserve ratios. I'm surprised we haven't heard clamoring for that here.

Jayhawkerman2001
09-15-2008, 11:17 PM
So you don't even have a 401k or a savings account?

i gotcha now. we have about 3k in savings, but no 401k to speak of... Yah, i kinda get the feeling we're going to be ****ed and have to move back in with our parents, lol... :(

banyon
09-15-2008, 11:23 PM
i gotcha now. we have about 3k in savings, but no 401k to speak of... Yah, i kinda get the feeling we're going to be ****ed and have to move back in with our parents, lol... :(

It sounds like you are living paycheck to paycheck with a little set aside for a rainy day. That rainy day might come and eat away your savings and if your employer is slow to adjust your wages with the inflation rate, then you could be looking at not making some rent checks. The good news is your landlord will be desperate for the money, so they'll cut you more slack than usual. But you really don't have that much to lose. People at the beginning of their earnings potential in life could stand to come out very well out of this.

J Diddy
09-15-2008, 11:24 PM
It sounds like you are living paycheck to paycheck with a little set aside for a rainy day. That rainy day might come and eat away your savings and if your employer is slow to adjust your wages with the inflation rate, then you could be looking at not making some rent checks. The good news is your landlord will be desperate for the money, so they'll cut you more slack than usual. But you really don't have that much to lose. People at the beginning of their earnings potential in life could stand to come out very well out of this.


your a pessimistic mofo

Jayhawkerman2001
09-15-2008, 11:27 PM
well, once the wife finishes in may she's getting herself a real job, hopefully things wont get too awful bad before then. I may have to put school aside for a bit or something and work full-time instead of part-time. I don't want to do that at all...

Ive been saying all along that all of our problems and hard times are coming at us because of corporate greed and all that fun stuff. GREED!!

banyon
09-15-2008, 11:31 PM
your a pessimistic mofo

Usually, yes. :D


Hey, I'm a Chiefs and Royals fan, right?

Cave Johnson
09-15-2008, 11:34 PM
Interesting side note.... I found out the g/f (she's 29, I'm 31) has a pretty decent stock portfolio. Apparently it was over $500K before the tech bubble burst and is now about half. I pretty much suspected this, since her parents live in Ladue (which has a median household income of $141K) and her dad was a corporate lawyer.

Other than telling me to keep my car clean, the only other dating advice I got from my dad was that it's just as easy to love a rich girl as a poor girl.

This really causes me to rethink my position on whether an economic crash would be a net positive. I've got no exposure to the market (haven't been confident in the US economy for quite a while) and income coming in which could theoretically pay off my school loans. Not that I would really want to, since they're at 2.75%. So, good for me in the short term, possibly bad for me in the long term.

J Diddy
09-15-2008, 11:34 PM
Usually, yes. :D


Hey, I'm a Chiefs and Royals fan, right?


lol and a masochist

J Diddy
09-15-2008, 11:36 PM
Interesting side note.... I found out the g/f (she's 29, I'm 31) has a pretty decent stock portfolio. Apparently it was over $500K before the tech bubble burst and is now about half. I pretty much suspected this, since her parents live in Ladue (which has a median household income of $141K) and her dad was a corporate lawyer.

Other than telling me to keep my car clean, the only other dating advice I got from my dad was that it's just as easy to love a rich girl as a poor girl.

This really causes me to rethink my position on whether an economic crash would be a net positive. I've got no exposure to the market (haven't been confident in the US economy for quite a while) and income coming in which could theoretically pay off my school loans. Not that I would really want to, since they're at 2.75%. So, good for me in the short term, possibly bad for me in the long term.

dude, don't be stupid marry her now without a prenup

worse comes to worse you get half

:D

dirk digler
09-15-2008, 11:49 PM
Denise that article you posted intrigued me so I went and did some fact checking.

The bill was called the Gramm-Leech-Billey bill and in the first round of the bill McCain voted yes for it and was practically split down party lines with Republicans voting yes and Dems voting no

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN00900:@@@R

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105

6 months later after getting the bill out of conference it went to the final vote and McCain was the ONLY ONE NOT TO VOTE. I am curious as to why and I suspect it was because he was going to run for POTUS.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354

Friendo
09-15-2008, 11:58 PM
Denise that article you posted intrigued me so I went and did some fact checking.

The bill was called the Gramm-Leech-Billey bill and in the first round of the bill McCain voted yes for it and was practically split down party lines with Republicans voting yes and Dems voting no

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN00900:@@@R

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105

6 months later after getting the bill out of conference it went to the final vote and McCain was the ONLY ONE NOT TO VOTE. I am curious as to why and I suspect it was because he was going to run for POTUS.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354

pretty damning--good find dirk



U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S.900 as amended )
Vote Number: 105 Vote Date: May 6, 1999, 08:14 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 900
Measure Title: An Act to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 54
NAYs 44
Present 1
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Abraham (R-MI), Yea
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Ashcroft (R-MO), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bryan (D-NV), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Chafee, J. (R-RI), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Coverdell (R-GA), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Present
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Gorton (R-WA), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grams (R-MN), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Not Voting
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (R-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerrey (D-NE), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Mack (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Moynihan (D-NY), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Robb (D-VA), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Roth (R-DE), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---54
Abraham (R-MI)
Allard (R-CO)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee, J. (R-RI)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Gorton (R-WA)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nickles (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
NAYs ---44
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cleland (D-GA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Robb (D-VA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)
Present - 1
Fitzgerald (R-IL)

Not Voting - 1
Inhofe (R-OK)

jAZ
09-16-2008, 12:01 AM
It appears that we could have the smartest man to ever live as president and the US would still be up shit creek concerning the economy
That's the Republican platform at this point.

We've ****ed it up so bad, who cares anyway!!?! Vote for us!!!

jAZ
09-16-2008, 12:05 AM
Standard and Poor* cut AIG too.



*Freudian slip.

At what point do you put agreement on good public policy over your hatered of nothing in particular?

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 12:15 AM
That's the Republican platform at this point.

We've ****ed it up so bad, who cares anyway!!?! Vote for us!!!

"It can't get any worse"

"vote us and see"

BucEyedPea
09-16-2008, 01:02 AM
Their rating should say "broke."

And this began under Clinton/Rep congress and continued under Bush.
Greenspan and Bernanke are responsible too. Neither treasury nor the Fed
can save their pals now.

CHIEF4EVER
09-16-2008, 01:11 AM
Their rating should say "broke."

And this began under Clinton/Rep congress and continued under Bush.
Greenspan and Bernanke are responsible too. Neither treasury nor the Fed
can save their pals now.

Both parties are culpable in this mess. Recognize this quote?

"When the state is most corrupt, then the laws are most multiplied."

chagrin
09-16-2008, 01:13 AM
Anyone watching CNBC tonight. They are on live because of Moody's downgrading AIG. Analyst after analyst is predicting 'financial armegeddon' tomorrow.

Today was bad enough but tomorrow could be worse. :eek:

oh no!!! pack up the babies, grab the old ladies....head for the hills!!!

all of you should really chill the **** out

RINGLEADER
09-16-2008, 01:36 AM
AIG is getting a credit infusion from NY (in amounts I'm seeing reported from $20b to $50b). Overseas markets are still down 4%-6%.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2008, 02:01 AM
Both parties are culpable in this mess. Recognize this quote?

"When the state is most corrupt, then the laws are most multiplied."

I've seen something similar but don't know the author.

CHIEF4EVER
09-16-2008, 02:09 AM
I've seen something similar but don't know the author.

It was written long ago by a Roman named Tacitus. It is still true today.

penchief
09-16-2008, 07:19 AM
What's Obama going to do about this, then?

It appears that we could have the smartest man to ever live as president and the US would still be up shit creek concerning the economy

He wouldn't continue the same corrupt elitist policies of the Bush Administration, which McCain is vowing to do.

More tax cuts for the wealthiest, more corporate welfare, and more deregulation are not the solution to the excesses and greed that got us into this avoidable predicament.

Doubling down on the poison is not the antidote.

Programmer
09-16-2008, 07:47 AM
So you don't even have a 401k or a savings account?

I would estimate that a large percentage of young people do not have 401k's or savings established. Especially those that do not have jobs that either offer 401k's or competitive wages for under qualified workers. I have relatives that work for $10.00 an hour or less, they survive but do not have the extra funds to put into a 401k or a savings account. Your comment tends to make you look like something you abhor.

Programmer
09-16-2008, 07:48 AM
Usually, yes. :D


Hey, I'm a Chiefs and Royals fan, right?

I'd say, based on your commentary, you are less pessimistic and more cynical.

eazyb81
09-16-2008, 08:20 AM
This mess was caused by greed. It came from the very tops of the highest buildings all the way down to the people buying who couldn't afford it. Everyone in between, the bankers, politicians, investors, salesman, brokers etc. profited from it, and thought it would never end.

Well it did.

This mess isn't the fault of either party, or of any politicians. It was greed, and right now things are being corrected. Learn from them, profit from them, and recognize the next time greed takes over the market (so you can get your money out long before the correction happens).

I've heard Warren Buffet say that when everyone is selling it's time to buy, and when everyone is buying it's time to sell. Very difficult to do, but it's exactly right. It's now the time to buy, but only if you really, really know what you're doing......

:clap:

Agree. This is the result of greed, and it was greed from the guys at the top of the ladder all the way down the the bottom.

Also, I spoke with a friend this past weekend that was an investment banker bank in 2001, and he said he remembered thinking the industry was dead, the economy was going to collapse, and that the world might end - just total chaos and fear. Now, he can't help but look at where he could have entered some stocks at the bottom back then and made a kiling as they came back over the next few years.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2008, 08:26 AM
Let's vote McCain, so we can keep these policies in place.

SNR
09-16-2008, 10:14 AM
And that would be thanks to which President?Uh-huh. Change my ass. You're too busy blaming the other side. If the Democrats' nomination for president is so damn good, please tell me how he's going to clean up this mess instead of yelling out "Bush is stupid!"

I'm not voting for McCain and am in no way defending him, but around here I get the sense that Obama voters attack McCain with the belief that Obama would fix the problems that McCain wouldn't be able to do.

Please tell me what a president could do to alleviate this economic crisis and WOULD Obama do such a thing? I'm looking at this mess and I don't see how any president could lower inflation while restoring consumer confidence.

SNR
09-16-2008, 10:15 AM
He wouldn't continue the same corrupt elitist policies of the Bush Administration, which McCain is vowing to do.

More tax cuts for the wealthiest, more corporate welfare, and more deregulation are not the solution to the excesses and greed that got us into this avoidable predicament.

Doubling down on the poison is not the antidote.That's going to prevent economic armageddon?

memyselfI
10-09-2008, 03:26 PM
Wow, this post was just shy of a month ago. Look how much has happened since then. :eek:

memyselfI
10-09-2008, 03:28 PM
oh no!!! pack up the babies, grab the old ladies....head for the hills!!!

all of you should really chill the **** out

Chagrin, got any more words of wisdom? ROFL

Stewie
10-09-2008, 04:25 PM
The people who listen to CNBS are the same folks that are losing their asses in the market today. CNBS is nothing but a mouthpiece/cheerleader for Wall Street scum. I watch it for its comedy relief.

tomahawk kid
10-09-2008, 04:37 PM
The people who listen to CNBS are the same folks that are losing their asses in the market today. CNBS is nothing but a mouthpiece/cheerleader for Wall Street scum. I watch it for its comedy relief.

What does Stewie BC think?

Thank God I'm 30 and don't have that much money in the market?

Stewie
10-09-2008, 04:46 PM
What does Stewie BC think?

Thank God I'm 30 and don't have that much money in the market?

I've posted on CP my investment strategy. I've been out of the market (long) since July '07. I've been an aggressive contrarian investor since then with a stock portfolio to match (no I won't tell you where I'm invested. It's not for the feint of heart). If you're looking for what to do now, I really don't know. Things are so crazy who knows where we'll end up?

Remember, historically there are years and years and years that go by with no gain whatsoever in the broader markets. That's a distinct possibilty going forward. Yeah, there's money to be made but you actually have to do some homework and not rely on some Edward D. Jones flunkie who'll only steal your money.

BIG_DADDY
10-09-2008, 04:50 PM
Let's vote McCain, so we can keep these policies in place.

You say stupid shit just for the hell of it don't you?

***SPRAYER
10-09-2008, 05:05 PM
you actually have to do some homework and not rely on some Edward D. Jones flunkie who'll only steal your money.

I agree, that's why my financial rep works for PRIMERICA!!!

ROFL

memyselfI
02-10-2009, 03:12 PM
Oh, the good old days. :spock::eek::cuss:

And look at the Polly Annas in this thread mocking the problem.

***SPRAYER
02-10-2009, 03:17 PM
Oh, the good old days. :spock::eek::cuss:

And look at the Polly Annas in this thread mocking the problem.

Wait a few more months when we can bump some of the recent threads. Not that that will be any consolation considering how much more f'd we will all be.

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Change_Asshole_160.gif