... and thus my earlier comment: "He's not my president!" And that comment resulted in backs turned. Guys, if the trend continues, we will have Islamists in the majority in this country, or at least a high enough percentage that the split vote of the Christian side will allow a majority vote. When that happens, are we going to support Osama Bin Laden? Just because he wins an election, are we going to support the destruction of our country? I know that this is a reach. However, it is not that far off. We have a man in the White house that was put there mostly by people that want what you have and are not willing to work for it. He ran on a disguised socialist platform and people bought it hook line and sinker. The most idiotic thing I saw in November was a bumper sticker for Obama neatly placed on the back window of a Mercedes SUV. I wonder if that person is ready to give half of that Mercedes to MCG. He's out of work and can use it more than that fat cat.
......and yet for our country to prosper over the next several years, we need for his presidency to be successful. I don't believe that he can accomplish that without governing more from the center......early indications are that that is probably not going to be the case. Let's hope otherwise.....
I do not disagree with that statement whatsoever. And.....there are millions of Americans out there including me who want to work but are out of work because of the absolute worst mess that Obama inherited from the past 8 years. http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/05/news/economy/jobless_claims/index.htm Trump's take: http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/02/05/lkl.donald.trump/index.html That unwillingness of banks to lend money to businesses in a crisis situation cost me my job more than anything else. But....I've been told here that all that is made up nonsense.... :roll:
http://www.gta4.tv/forums/style_emoticons/default/********.gif .....Fannie Mae was chartered by congress in 1968 to promote home ownership and developed into the monster that bought and securitized any piece of crap underwritten by any storefront mortgage broker then subsequently sold to investors as a conservative income producing fixed income security with an implied government guarantee under the vision and magnificent leadership of one Franklin Raines, a chief economic policy advisor to the current President. .....the Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law by Jimmy Carter in 1977. .....the bill that ultimately repealed the Glass-Steagall Act - the law that required material separation of commercial banks from investment banking activities such as debt underwriting - was signed into law by Bill Clinton. If the above does not help you dispell the misguided notion that it was solely the policies of the last 8 years that created the credit debacle, there is nothing more I can say......
I received the news last summer that my parent hauling company would no longer haul Chrysler shipments due to the fact their ( the parent ) bank would no longer lend against Chrysler receivables. That is a fact....not B/S. At that point my local agent company that I actually worked for decided the only way we could bear the risk of dealing with Chrylser was to build an extra 10-15% into every bid for them which in a 3 bid situation took us right out of every bid.....so....we essentially lost the business. Then as the fall wore on my other automotive accounts also fell into the same situation credit wise and we could no longer get credit approval from the parent company to do the business unless we bore 100% of the risk of getting paid. We still did the business but GM was down 55% in business tendered to us because of their moratorium on non-essential expenditures. In December....when my company's line of liquidity is usually tapped because of seasonality of their base business the local bank announced they would no longer lend against my receivables due to tightened credit restrictions on that kind of risk. 60-70% of my company's business mix was Big Three and you can imagine the situation in early December presented to a Big Three supplier with all of the negative "bankruptcy as an option" talk going down every single day before the bail-out. The forecast for 2009 also came out at that time and the forecast was for the company to lose money this year so the decision was made to enact the layoffs which has affected several people I used to work with and is still going on there. That's pretty much the timeline.....here I sit unemployed....and the bank's unwillingness to work with Chrysler back in the summer kick-started the whole sad story.
There is a lot of extreme nonsense on both ends of the spectrum being spouted here. I would not characterize either side's argument as bulls--t, but I certainly see a wide, uncrossable chasm between the two conflicting positions. The economic problems we are enduring are - with the benefit of hindsight - the result of an era of unprecedented widespread prosperity, which inevitably gave way to greed and irresponsible behavior at all levels of society, from the wage earner to the wall street gurus, and all businesses, agents, and governmental entities in between. Government, specifically the national administration and congress, whether republican or democrat, neither started this nor can it cure the problem. To think otherwise is just plain misguided. Acknowledging that we are where we are, to complain that executives of irresponsible banks and investment firms whose employers are receiving government "charity" should not be subject to having their incomes controlled is akin to saying that they should not pay the price for their behavior, that they should not be held accountable for their bad decisions and policies. They can't be prosecuted, so this is their punishment....and well deserved. Spare me the argument of "losing the most qualified people." It does not apply. It has nothing to do with "government controlling pay levels." That is a conservative-minded smokescreen. When all the smoke clears, this is a free economy subject to the same pitfalls and corrections that have always existed. Except for Joel and possibly Bill, none of us were alive during the Great Depression, so we've never been exposed to what we are going through. The corrections are more extreme than any of us have ever experienced, so we look for someone or something to blame. The conservatives blame the liberals and the new president, the liberals likewise in the other direction. What happens? The people in power (liberal) get to do their thing, probably for the next 8 years, and the vanquished folks (conservative) get to whine about it........a role reversal from the past 8 years. In the end, government will spend a lot of money, and the economy eventually will stabilize, which it would have done without the expenditures but perhaps with more pain. There. I feel much better. Carry on.
This is price less.....on the one hand you trash the stupid bankers for getting us into this mess AND on the other hand you trash the bankers for not wanting to make ADDITIONAL loans to a company that has already evidenced itself to be unworthy of further credit extensions. If you want to trash the bankers for not wanting to "work" with Chrysler, they will accept that criticism and proceed to find opportinities to extend credit to enterprises that actually have prospects to actually repay the money back to the depositors and shareholders. Why do I say ADDITIONAL credit? Let's me see....where to begin? Are you aware - no, obviously not, but anyway - Chrysler already owes the banks BILLIONS of dollars in loans already extended to them for which they are currently in default.....BILLIONS! This summer, the credit rating for Chrysler fell to JUNK status.....JUNK. What happens at that point to the Chrysler debt that the banks already hold????? At that point, Chrysler debt is trading for 50 cents on the dollar.....50 cents. That means that the bankers are required to take losses to the tune of one-half of everything they have lent to Chrysler, which is BILLIONS in write-downs. The banks are already in a position wherein they can force Chrysler into bankruptcy proceedings......Chrysler is making cars today, because and only because the bankers have not felt in in anybody's best interests at this point to bring down the hammer.....and you're telling me that the bankers are unwilling to work with Chrysler and you're trashing the bankers because they were unwillinig to send additional moneys that belong to their shareholders and their depositors (read that you and me) down the sh!thole of credit that is Chrysler...... ........and yet it's the bankers fault. Right......
......it does in fact apply, it has been evidenced in the past and will in fact happen again. It's fundamental human nature. Will it be the end of humanity as we know it? Of course not. Will it make the the already difficult task to rebuilding these franchises more difficult than otherwise? Without question....
I don't blame the banks for not working with Chrysler....but I do blame the banks for not loosening up their lending to the car buying consumer so that these automakers can help themselves climb out of the deep hole they are in. Until lenders can and do lend money to buy cars then car companies are toast although I do realize that their own lending arms have been given bailout money this year to do just that. With regard to banks lending to businesses....not lending to Chrysler is one thing but not lending to my company because we have Chrysler, GM and Ford on the receiving books may be prudent.....or it may be really tight, raised credit standards when my company has repaid all loans on time....but it is in fact causative with regard to my specific layoff.....as I originally stated.
Just curious Dave between 2001 and 2008 did your income go up, property values go up and investment values go up?
Within this CNNmoney.com article written by Paul R. LaMonica about the current state of the banking system is one analyst's view of the current management situation at B of A: THE Bank of America?
Base value of my investments went down a few percentage points from 2001-2008 ....property value went up for a while due to the housing market increase (bubble?) and the residual effect of the GM move to downtown Detroit.....but then my property value took a serious tumble like everyone else's in the past 3 years or so and I could only hope to get what I could get in 2001. Frankly my home value is most likely at 1999 levels at best. My income took a jump in 2000 but that was because of my own success and efforts in landing a large part of GM business not previously enjoyed by my company. Income was fairly steady or slightly better at times during the period of 2001-2006 mostly because of business that I continued to accumulate for the company but it began a downturn the last two years and would have crashed in 2009 because of the automotive meltdown. FYI the DOW was 10,788 in early 2001 and the Nasdaq was incredibly over 5,000. Here it is 8 years later and the Nasdaq has tanked miserably and the DOW is almost 3,000 below where it was then and it was almost at 12,000 a year earlier. Just a very tough period for the markets.
So let me get this straight Dave, in housing there was a bubble but the NASDAQ going to 5,000 wasn't. Hundreds of dot coms came and went as well as many other tech companies like Global Crossing. Spurred by a bogus Y2K scare, PC makers had record sales a business and people hurried to upgrade their hardware before 2000. Most folks I know in the area propered well from the 9/11 recovery through 2007.
There were bubbles in both the Nasdaq and housing.....no one can deny that. But it is.....what it is.....and what it is it ain't great.
....there are 8000 banks in this country. As we well know, bankers will stumble over themselves to make a buck. If your company was credit worthy, the bankers would fight each other to extend them credit. What was "causative" with regards to your layoff was also "causative" with regard to the banks not wanting to lend.....
BT...what was credit worthy before the mortgage and banking crisis was not so credit worthy in the fall of 2008. Lending standards became different for both consumer and businesses. If you think that is wrong I would like to see links to credible sources who support your argument. I do agree that the state the car companies became mired in led to their becoming a credit risk on many balance sheets and that negatively impacted credit ratings across the board with anyone doing automotive business.
Of course they have.....thank God! As has been so often stated here and elsewhere, bankers are not very smart but they are not entirely stupid. After hearing the outcry from the masses and the President's bully pulpit about the ills that have been brought on the nation as a result of too easy credit and poor lending standards, even bankers can figure it out.