Banks-rupt; Forestalling Foreclosure; Detroit Doom - Left, Right Comments

BrockD

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:28:39 +0000

Anyone interested in a good reference for "IRONY", take a gander here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A700958 I don't want to argue over who is or isn't racist anymore. But I think the chimp cartoon was actually very healthy for our nation. It's not universally agreed, but I think it's generally agreed by most fair people that the CHIMP cartoon was either A) BLATANTLY racist or B)Fairly inferred to be racist (even if it really wasn't intended to be).

Greg

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:51:21 +0000

Bob has been rattling on for weeks about "bailing out the homeowners" in lieu of Wall Street. But isn't he missing a fundamental point? The "homeowners" are living in homes they can't afford. We could argue forever about whose fault this is - the lenders or the purchasers, but either way, going forward, these people can't afford to stay in those homes. How can we possibly expect the taxpayer to pay for this?

BrockD

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:44:01 +0000

Notice: I have changed my screen name to BrockD. This won't help for any nut who already knows my first and last name. But hopefully it will deter any future nuts I encounter.

Robert Atwood

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:56:29 +0000

I think the fatal flaw of Obama’s stimulus plan is he is operating on the same premise as most every American, right and left: if we just get through this, we can go back to business as usual. If we just get the banks lending. If we just put a floor under house values. If we just get enough money into consumers’ hands. Everything Obama has done has been about trying to get the the existing machine going again: help in many directions see what works better, don’t spook investors, keepthe existing financial structure going. But, what does it mean if the economic situation is as bad as Tony is starting to fear (which I believe to be the case)? What does the vengeance of the market really mean? It means we will be operating in a economic paradigm that will not return values and wealth and economic activity to where they were. Perhaps another 20-30% drop in the worth of all asset clases followed by a slow growth economy. Perhaps a world that looked like the late 30s, where most Americans could not afford homes and where products were bought with the expectation they would last for many years; no more new wardrobe every year, new electronics every two, new furniture every five. That means an unwinding of the entire “big suburban home, three vehicle, multi flat screen, multi vacation culture.” Nobody on the right or left has yet shown the courage to broach that reality.

Phil Henshaw

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:47:34 +0000

Game-ruptcy... There's some physics that could work. Once you look at it as a real option it seems both necessary and would really work, reset the money game to snuff out of the deflationary spiral. The basic issue is how much more debt obligations were created than the physical economy produces wealth. Then people got into a further game of raising the stakes, like musical chairs... It's a fundamental problem with the game. You can measure these things, compare the measures of the real economy and the compounding money obligations no one can support, and mark down the obligations. It could be done by a simple, if significant, executive order. It won't collapse the system because you would only be erasing illusions of wealth, and relieving the critical institutions of the economy of unfulfillable obligations. We need to stop playing catch-up when it’s our life support system caught in a global deflationary spiral. www.synapse9.com/issues/reset$.htm

StanH

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:00:29 +0000

Here's a question about the volatility of the stock market, particularly when the Dow was down for a while Friday supposedly because Sen. Dodd or someone mentioned possibly "nationalizing" banks. In a few hours it was reasonably back up. Price falling happens when some investors sell stock at a lower price and others buy it. But for political and media purposes, these dips seem to be like a political opinion poll for the investor class, for them to send a message to the President and Congress. So let's assume that's true. What happens to the money that supposedly the sellers are losing to the buyers? Do they have a deal to sell it back to each other once the "poll" is over? Is someone getting rich trying to game the volatility? I often question the importance that the stock market prices have as a meaure of the real economy. All the investment has already happened when the stock was issued, and it seems like often people are speculating or otherwise behaving irrationally, or trying to game those who are as we saw durting the various "bubbles." We might as well be watching a Texas hold em poker tournament. Feel free to enlighten me otherwise.

brian

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:43:40 +0000

Save Left Right & Center! Civilized? Anti-dote to the screaming talking heads? Not with Bob Shear on the line. Bob Shear and Rick Santelli are like peas in a pod. Both hysterical, screeching rating hounds. One key reason why this country is in such a mess is due to the emergence and now dominance of "shock-jock" journalism that started on radio, moved to cable, and now thrives in the blogosphere. On the left, the King of the non-sensical rant is Bob Shear. (Rachel Maddow? Nope. She's whip-smart. Olberman? Sometimes.) Bob needs to be kicked off the show. I don't even understand what he's screaming about half the time. His complaint about transparency? Check out Recovery.gov Bob. He's condescending and often not factually correct. Matt, please stay true to the tagline of the show. Get rid of Bob.

Andy95

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:40:24 +0000

Wow, all the panelists were interesting but I sure thought Tony was spot on tonight. Both his comments about letting the harsh market punish the bad actors and the potential backlash brewing. These bailouts are simply passing a big bill onto our kids and for what? We are not bailing out destitute poor people. We are bailing out homeowners who bought too much house or dumb lenders who made bad loans. We cannot soften the impact of these bad loans, we simply have to sell the assets and right-off the losses and the sooner the better. The government intervention has increased uncertainty in the markets. Everyone is wondering what the new market equations will be. Why are the old rules of bankruptcy suddenly obsolete? Our country has gone soft and we now have Fortune 500 CEOs asking for handouts with no shame. American business used to be the envy of the world and now we get these slugs. Where did this come from? If we bailout all these failures, what lesson does this teach lenders, homeowners and corporations? Does our government know how to run banks? Would you like the DMV to hold your checking account?

Rightguy

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:31:35 +0000

I wish Matt would stop using the analogy of fixing the economy by "throwing spaghetti against the wall." Someone should point out that when you throw spaghetti against the wall most of the time you end up with a big mess.

wildirish

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:02:53 +0000

comment 2: As a taxpayer/investor, I want to see a fair return on my investment; and demand some form of accountability. My only real option is to have elected government officials oversee the restructuring of these industries. Also, when I hear the glib comments about 'letting the market work' [this week from both Tony and Bob (!?)], I have to cringe. Perhaps within our U.S. bubble it's easy to forget, but when major societal change MUST occur, and governments are too corrupt, intimidated, or downright evil to address those changes, it tends to result in violence. Let's hope this country doesn't sink that far.

wildirish

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:01:46 +0000

comment 1: I regularly work with those oft-maligned 'government bureaucrats' and can relate to concerns about government decisionmaking in various forms, but we suffer from Matt's 'tyranny of dead ideas' if we refuse to face the music and nationalize major mortgage banks, major health insurers, and the Big 2 out of 3 in the auto industry. We are in a rare, but pivotal, moment in our history where several major industries MUST be radically restructured, and it MUST be done in a fashion that limits exposure of the most vulnerable among us.

Jasson

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:07:32 +0000

I’m used to Tony Blankley’s jaw-droppers but his comment in the rant that Iran is looking for a war takes the cake. After Obama was elected but Bush was still the President, Israel asked for bunker buster bombs so that they could attack Iran. Cheney wanted to go along but Bush, in a spasm of sanity, refused the request. So who is it that wants war, Iran or Israel and the insane right wing here at home?

Robert

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:54:55 +0000

Scherr is right. It is fascism. However, he is wrong to claim that more government regulation will eliminate this. The regulation is a fascist model. Eliminate government involvement and let investors and consumers regulate the markets. Their choices will be more accurate and honest in keeping banks and markets true. If the government gets out of the markets banks may find it in their interest to renegotiate loans. Foreclosure is a threat from banks to push the government to do something. Get out of the business of business and the right choices will be made.

BrockD

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:49:18 +0000

Matt's Apology was a Great apology. Should be put in the next textbook on this sort of thing. I thought the part where he thanked the blogger for complaining was a little over the top. Are we really supposed to believe that after the show he walked around hoping somebody would compain about it? I mean, this sort of thing has gotten people fired. That doesn't shake Matt, though. He's happy somebody did the right thing. But no shoutout to those of us who defended him (not his comment). I guess we're just a bunch of insensitive jerks. What happened to those great liberal americans when the CHIMP cartoon came up? Not a peep out of them. All their rage was exhausted on the indian giver comment. I think that was just "gotcha message boarding". Finally, I thought it was cowardly that Matt didn't use the opportunity to discuss the CHIMP cartoon.

RIGHTGUY

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:39:53 +0000

It looks like this site has been polarized again. It needs another shot of the Rightguy to provide a bit of balance. You're spoiled and have no idea how good you and others have it in this country. You enjoy the luxury of pounding away at your computers, reveling in the possibility that our country will go down in flames and reap the rewards of all the dastardly deeds of our conservative administrations. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE. TAKE YOUR BLINDERS OFF AND TRY TO VIEW THINGS WITHOUT SO MUCH BIAS AND PREJUDICE! Here's an opinion from the Rightguy: I have much respect for Bob Scheer. I don't agree with most of his philosophies, but he is at least true to his beliefs. He criticizes when criticism is due, regardless of whether it must be directed at Bush or Obama. I only wish more people who write on this blog had as much hutspaugh.

BrockD

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:05:56 +0000

I do my share of criticizing LR&C panelists. But it sure would be nice to come on here some day and hear somebody say something nice about it. Despite its obvious faults, this is still the best political talk show on public radio.* *It's All Politics is a close second.

Santa Monica gal

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 03:55:49 +0000

I have to agree with Matt tonight. Obama has just been elected, and he's already being so unbelievably hammered by naysaying, IMHO. To greatly simplify his platform, on a basis of hope and real change. After merely a number of weeks, why are so many so vociferously 'freaking out' from so many quarters (including Bob Shear who is usually my hero on voicing the opinions I hold dear so eloquently), when some big deal changes are being introduced? Again, keeping it simple, things are already a mess. Can we back off and let our guy have a few months to produce the kind of results we elected him for? Was he just kidding when he kept saying over and over how HARD it was going to be, were the collective 'we' merely nodding our heads in assent because our heads felt wobbly from fear? For crying out loud-the fat cats are half the problem, and the OTHER half is the rest of us whining and complaining how Pres Obama hasn't done this yet, has disappointed us in that -we are CONTINUING the bad faith which is crippling the market by all this holier than thou second guessing, finger wagging and complaining. How much more do we need to see the the entire economic system arrested in it's tracks? I am just gobsmacked at how little faith and TRUST both are being demonstrated by we the people. What a fickle bunch! Can't we just buckle up,shut up and let the man and his people DO the job we cried about believing he would do, on the night of his inauguration?!

elkojohn

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:02:05 +0000

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government. . .

Tim Isom

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:42:34 +0000

It must be official when I hear Tony echoing the talking points of Limbaugh (the "leader" of the right) about the chance to "fix it" in 2 years since Obama is failing. Careful what you wish for. If it really does fail as you all seem to be hoping then I doubt you'll still think that's a good idea when you have to face that reality - when North America looks like South & Central America with the very few owning everything and the "peasants" looking for a glass of water. Then again Hannity and Rush are probably wealthy enough on the "winning" side with Blackwater, I mean XE, defending them from the unwashed masses aka Chile 1972

Nash Shaw

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:11:17 +0000

It seems that the bank bailouts are providing relief to the stockholders of those banks! Also, the white house came out with a statement that they believe in banks remaining in private hands. 1) I, and I am sure thousands others, have lost their investments because the companies we invested in went bankrupt. Why should we common stockholders lose out, while some selective stockholders of these banks be bailed out? While I have no problems in banks being provided relief, these relief procedures should be considered as bankruptcy restructurings, with the existing stockholders losing thier investments, and the new stockholders being the public whose tax money is being used for the bailouts. 2) I feel the term "in private hands" should not be confused with "private ownership"! While, with nationalization of banks, the cutody/oversight of banks will end up with the government, and the ownership may end up with the government and/or the public, the management may still be carried out by "private professionals" instead of "government officials".