Unemployment Now 9.7%

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Dear DEEZIRE

It woulda been better to let the bad ones fail, yes. All we've done is set a precedent that the Big Boys get a free ride if they fuck up. These same banks are now screwing customers with outrageous fees and interest; theyre using the stimulus money to buy smaller banks, to eliminate more competition.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

And you think it would have been better to close the banks, instead of trying to make the banks solvent? How do you get loans without solvent banks? The whole point of the bailout was to free up credit, which, to a degree, the stimulus package was successful in doing. The reason for small business failures has more to do with the recession than it has to do with government policies that are trying to mitigate the recession.

I knew Obama was screwed when he took office. No matter what he does trying to clean up Bush's mess, he still gets blamed for the carnage. The blame game works fine for the ill-informed and the ignorant, but it just looks tacky to the rest of us.

As has been pointed out, the large investment banks had to be saved. However, it was done by loaning taxpayer dollars to those banks without interest paid back to the tax payer for the use of their capital.

I see the same thing wrong with the Large, Wall Street Investment Banks that I saw wrong with the Madoff affair. Why didn't the Federal Researve and Federal Banking Board catch what was going on the same way no body caught Madoff running a multi billion dollar investment scheme without a license right under the nose of the SEC?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

More importantly, theyre out there competing with the honest banks.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

More importantly, theyre out there competing with the honest banks.

I'm not even going to mention the fucking scam they pulled to give themselves multiMillion Dollar bonuses for "a job well done."

 

[DeeZire]

...Why didn't the Federal Researve and Federal Banking Board catch what was going on the same way no body caught Madoff running a multi billion dollar investment scheme without a license right under the nose of the SEC?

Because the Bush administration encouraged lax enforcement.

 

[DesertPirate]

Because the Bush administration encouraged lax enforcement.

Like Barney Frank ensured the scam at Freddie and Fannie was allowed to continue? Bush wanted it fixed in 2001 and 2003 and Frank led the charge saying everything was fine (while his lover banked millions in bonuses working for Freddie).

Look at the top Dems on any Banking or Finance committee and realize they were there the whole time and are just as responsible. Can't blame Bush for everything, forever.
When something is done, jail wise about Frank, Dodd and Rangle, come back and say something. Of the 17 members of Congress under investigation for criminal acts at this time, 13 are Dems.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Because the Bush administration encouraged lax enforcement.

Umm... I don't think Bush was in the White House for 20 years. Dee. That's how long Madoff got away with it.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Like Barney Frank ensured the scam at Freddie and Fannie was allowed to continue? Bush wanted it fixed in 2001 and 2003 and Frank led the charge saying everything was fine (while his lover banked millions in bonuses working for Freddie).

Look at the top Dems on any Banking or Finance committee and realize they were there the whole time and are just as responsible. Can't blame Bush for everything, forever.
When something is done, jail wise about Frank, Dodd and Rangle, come back and say something. Of the 17 members of Congress under investigation for criminal acts at this time, 13 are Dems.

Yet more tired BullShit from the sore losers.......

 

[TE999]

Umm... I don't think Bush was in the White House for 20 years. Dee. That's how long Madoff got away with it.

I'm guessin' some folks in the SEC found bags of unmarked Twenties in their desk drawers on Monday morning...and many Monday mornings after that.

 

[DeeZire]

Originally Posted by DesertPirate
Like Barney Frank ensured the scam at Freddie and Fannie was allowed to continue? Bush wanted it fixed in 2001 and 2003 and Frank led the charge saying everything was fine (while his lover banked millions in bonuses working for Freddie).

Look at the top Dems on any Banking or Finance committee and realize they were there the whole time and are just as responsible. Can't blame Bush for everything, forever.
When something is done, jail wise about Frank, Dodd and Rangle, come back and say something. Of the 17 members of Congress under investigation for criminal acts at this time, 13 are Dems.

Here's a sourced article on the Bush regime's tactics for hindering SEC investigations.

http://hungeski.gnn.tv/blogs/32260/Bush_II_Slowed_SEC_During_Financial_Fraud_Fury

“It was like someone poured molasses on the enforcement division,” said one manager about the Bush II Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) during the chairmanship of Christopher Cox.x20 As financial fraud raged on Wall Street, Cox’s management slowed financial law enforcement at every stage of a case.x21x22x23 To open a case, an investigator had to wait, sometimes for months, for the five-person (Republican majority) commission to review and approve it. To research a case, an investigator had to deal with lousy support facilities. For example, the old, patchwork data system often forced an investigator to go outside the agency for real-time trading information. And the lack of administrative help left an investigator to spend hours a day on tasks such as scanning documents and making ones own travel arrangements. To bring a case to court (an enforcement action), an investigator had to get it through eight levels of review before placing it before the commission for approval. Some cases were dropped during this review process because they had become so old. To settle a case where the corporate culprit would pay a penalty, again the investigator had to send it to the commission, which would often slash or wipe out the fine. In one case, the commission set the penalty below that which the company itself had proposed, leaving the investigator to go back to the company to explain the lower amount. Seeing one’s work undercut at the final stage, swayed investigators away from taking up difficult cases of big financial fraud, and towards easier cases, such as small Ponzi schemes and insider trading. For example, cases of naked short selling — an illegal practice rife for big fraud — were not pursued, with 5000 complaints over 15 months resulting in zero enforcement actions.x24 Under these conditions investigators left the agency, further slowing enforcement. So here we see one way that the pro-corporate Bush regime fought corporate regulation: by hindering civil servants from doing the job.

 

[Handprints]

It seems reasonable to expect 10.5% and 20+% for official and total unemployment by spring next year. About a third of the specialists looking at the numbers think that's when a plateau forms that the economy can build from (it may seem like they're a larger minority/majority but, the truth is, this third of the "expert" market is the third that gets the most screen time/invitations to speak in front of televised government panels. Another third suggest the statistical equivalent of "if you slit a pig's throat, eventually you'll see the bleeding start to subside," and think unemployment will start to pick up speed again once businesses realize that the US economy ain't coming back to life in the next few years. No expert myself, I'm fellow-traveling with in the third camp, which says it has no idea what will happen to US employment more than a couple of months out. If someone put a gun to my head, I'd guess in favour of 20+% total unemployment (not the headline official figure) for at least a couple of years.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I'm guessin' some folks in the SEC found bags of unmarked Twenties in their desk drawers on Monday morning...and many Monday mornings after that.

Actually if you check it out, Bernard Madoff's daughter got married to the son of the SEC (I believe that's right or at may have been the other way around).
Talk about keeping it in the family.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

It seems reasonable to expect 10.5% and 20+% for official and total unemployment by spring next year. About a third of the specialists looking at the numbers think that's when a plateau forms that the economy can build from (it may seem like they're a larger minority/majority but, the truth is, this third of the "expert" market is the third that gets the most screen time/invitations to speak in front of televised government panels. Another third suggest the statistical equivalent of "if you slit a pig's throat, eventually you'll see the bleeding start to subside," and think unemployment will start to pick up speed again once businesses realize that the US economy ain't coming back to life in the next few years. No expert myself, I'm fellow-traveling with in the third camp, which says it has no idea what will happen to US employment more than a couple of months out. If someone put a gun to my head, I'd guess in favour of 20+% total unemployment (not the headline official figure) for at least a couple of years.

It Rate of Unemployed (the actual rate of people out of work) between 1930 and 1934 hovered around 20%. The Economy went to shit, but by 1932 Wall Street was already making money.

Odd how history seems to be repeating almost exactly.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JJ

Sure they did. The Crash devalued lotsa excellent blue chip stock that were certain to rise again. So the big players short-sold them in 1929, then bought them back once the bottom was hit. There was little chance GM or RCA or STANDARD OIL and US STEEL would go bankrupt.

I predict the short sellers will make another shark attack on the market, once the DOW rises a little higher and the fools are back.