- 6,247
- 18
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
now you guys are seeing the light
Mitt Romney 2012
Mitt Romney 2012
lilstarz07
Banned
- 3,227
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
Essential1 wrote:
He is... The election of Brown was a blessing for dems and Obama so far... News reports are saying that Geithner and Sommers have lost almost all power in the Obama admin, and he is listening to smart people who know what they are talking about. Obama has picked up the tone and is talking with some fire. And telling people things are non-negotiable which Obama has never done before..
So far losing Ted Kennedy's seat has been nothing but great news...
at least your consistent
glad to see youre still at it ...
- 36,415
- 11,199
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
it's you're there like you used in the second part
and it is not consistent, it is being right.
You can check the polling of why Dems, Republicans and Independents who voted for Obama and for Brown or stayed home.
Your request is being processed...
[table][tr][td]
[/td][td]
[/td][td]
[/td][/tr][tr][td]
[/td][td]
[/td][td]
[/td][/tr][tr][td]
[/td][td]
[/td][td]
[/td][/tr][/table]
Massachusettsvoters who backed Barack Obama in the presidential election a year agoand either switched support to Republican Senate candidate Scott Brownor simply stayed home, said in a poll conducted after the electionTuesday night that if Democrats enact tougher policies on Wall Street,they'll be more likely to come back to the party in the next election.
A majority of Obama voters who switched to Brown said that"Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than MainStreet." A full 95 percent said the economy was important or veryimportant when it came to deciding their vote.
In a somewhat paradoxical finding, a plurality of voters whoswitched to the Republican -- 37 percent -- said that Democrats werenot being "hard enough" in challenging Republican policies.
It would be hard to find a clearer indication, it seems, that Tuesday's vote was cast in protest.
The poll also upends the conventional understanding of health care'srole in the election. A plurality of people who switched -- 48 -- ordidn't vote -- 43 -- said that they opposed the Senate health carebill. But the poll dug deeper and asked people why they opposed it.Among those Brown voters, 23 percent thought it went "too far" -- but36 percent thought it didn't go far enough and 41 percent said theyweren't sure why they opposed it.
Among voters who stayed home and opposed health care, a full 53percent said they opposed the Senate bill because it didn't go farenough; 39 percent weren't sure and only eight percent thought it wenttoo far.
The firm Research 2000 conducted the post-election survey Tuesdaynight on behalf of three progressive organizations -- the ProgressiveChange Campaign Committee, Democracy for America and MoveOn.org.
Taken from interviews of 500 Obama backers who voted in the Senateelection and 500 Obama backers who sat out the election, the firmdiscovered that 18 percent of Obama backers who voted in the Senaterace ended up casting ballots for Brown.
Of that group, 82 percent said they favored a public option forinsurance coverage, with 14 percent opposed. Of those who sat out theelection, 86 percent favored the public option, while only sevenpercent opposed it. The findings suggests that progressive argumentsthat disappointed Obama supporters deserted have serious merit.
- 1,296
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
Yes I would have said something, too. The crisis was caused by what?
1. Exotic Derivatives
2. Reckless Lending
3. Sub-prime Mortgages
4. No credit, even for commercial paper, which funds day to day options
So tell me, how would curtailing Prop Trading change any of the above? Also, why can't the Street invest in HF, VCs, PE funds anymore, or have there own? The only instance where a hedge fund really brought down a firm was in the case of Bear Stearns, and to a much smaller extent, Deutsche Bank. These were BULGE BRACKET banks, though. Not your JPM, or C or BoA. Completely different field.
lilstarz07
Banned
- 3,227
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
heres a poll for you ... obama got 100% of the "dumb @%! in politics" vote when he got elected ... which is why i dont care about this battle or any other political battle ... because when it comes down to it, the young jeezy supporters will be back in full force in 2012, still not knowing their @%! from their elbow when it comes to politics, casting votes for obama ... they have no clue whats going on in mass or even their own state ...
i just hope to god that our country doesnt get seriously attacked within the next 7 years so i can live to see the day when this spineless vagina is out of the oval office ...
i just hope to god that our country doesnt get seriously attacked within the next 7 years so i can live to see the day when this spineless vagina is out of the oval office ...
- 36,415
- 11,199
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
100% of the dumb supporters???????????
By the way not only has Obama got more terrorists in the top 20 Terror List than Bush got in 8 years....................... He has kept us safer than George Bush....
You do not live in any kind of facts.............
- 36,415
- 11,199
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
Here's another one for you
Do you want more?????
Do you want more?????
- 1,296
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
So maybe I was wrong to include JPM but you can't tell me that GS didn't make most of it's revenue from trading...
Total Trading and Principal Investments
$ 34,373
Total net revenues
$ 45,173
Besides that, I don't trust financial statements because the government basically gave these banks the right to pull Enron style accounting tricks so whoknows what the real numbers are. All I know is that GS derives most of it's revenue from trading. THIS plan brought up by Obama, no matter what hispolitical reasons, will end that. Paul Volcker has been wanting to break these banks up and I know this plan allows him a chance to do so.
Goldman Sachs will definitely drop it's status to continue trading. They're SUPPOSE TO. Goldman Sachs SHOULD NOT be a commercial bank and I'msurprised it took the administration this long to do something about it.
As for commercial banks hedging positions? They're NOT SUPPOSE TO. Commercial banks are suppose to be flush with deposits from everyday people. You hedgeto lower your exposure to excessive risks, commercial banks are NOT suppose to be exposed to excessive risks. By doing so they create the problems that led tothis financial crisis.
Market makers will be gone but more will replace them. There's money in making markets and I don't see that void being there for long. Even if spreadsrise in the short term, there will be lower volatility and lower volumes on the stock exchanges, removing the current situation we have today. Sure it'sbad for traders but it's better in the long run. You can't have your cake and eat it, especially when most of the free world just took on huge taxresponsibilities preventing that cake from collapsing.
The timing is suspect but I hope they do this. The problem is banks are too big to fail, we need to make them smaller so that we don't have these sameproblems in 5-10 years.
As a side note, what's your beef with ZeroHedge? They're one of the few sources that provide good information.
I have many friends at GS, and I'll believe them more when they say that trading revenue is south of 10% of revenue than some website that conspires, ahem (ZH), that trading revenue is almost all of revenue. If revenue really was mostly derived from trading, you'd see traders exit in the masses from GS since their bonuses wouldn't be proportional to what they earned the firm. I don't see that happening right now.
Banks are hedging because of exposure to exotic derivatives. It was those derivatives, coupled with Subprime Mortgages, that got us into this mess. Rather than targeting something that has nothing to do with the crisis, and targeting things that do, prop desks will naturally wind down themselves, because the need to hedge will fall on its own.
I hate ZH because they try to conspire things about topics that aren't as bad as they really are. It's kinda annoying, and their bias is so heavily skewed, it makes it even more ridiculous to read.
- 1,683
- 39
- Joined
- May 25, 2008
I have no problem with the reinstatement of Glass-Steagal. I think repealing it was one of the major reasons for the economic down turn. The only thing that bothers me is that Obama may take power from the treasury and give it to the Federal Reserve.
- 1,850
- 25
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
Exactly. Name me one COMMERCIAL bank (which had "taxpayers money") that had a hedge fund that caused them to fail.... I'll be waiting....
These NT obama stans don't even know what prop trading is... just blindly following like sheep.
- 9,611
- 14
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2008
- 36,415
- 11,199
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
agreed
- 1,296
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
Glass Steagal didn't cause the downturn. All it did was make it so that there would be more lose if one firm went down i.e. TBTF.
I hope Obama isn't naive enough to give the Fed anymore control than they already do now.
- 3,229
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
Says the guy who reverts to namecalling instead of adding educated arguments. Sounds like you know your stuff
- 2,506
- 109
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2005
I know you're being somewhat sarcastic about blaming Obama for your shares dropping, but speaking in general, our Presidents priorities shouldn't lie in being sure the economy is stable for the middle to upper class citizens who have stable positions.Originally Posted by LetItShine24
Yeah and it dropped another 200 points today. So whats there to calm down aboutOriginally Posted by finnns2003
Down 1.79% right now, calm down.
His priorities are, and should be, in the lower class citizens struggling to support themselves and their families. Helping them was his goal in his push of healthcare reform, and definitely in credit card sanctions. I'm not really familiar with banking terms and hedge funds to be honest, but I'm sure it has a lot more to do with maintaining the stability of the economy rather than making it extremely successful.
- 9,530
- 91
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2003
These topics are always good for a laugh. I seriously don't understand how individuals with absolutely no knowledge on the subject run off at the mouth. I guarantee 95% of you talking sideways have no idea what you're talking about.
- 6,493
- 15,644
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
People are missing the point in this whole financial and economic mess, it is the very concept of "to big to fail" (TBTF) that made it a rational decision on the part of bankers to do the risky things that they did.
The guarantee that gains would be private but losses would be socialized created the incentives and bankers responded to them. To compound the problem, the Fed created too much easy money, which amplified the level of bad investments and it was all of those malinvestments, sending scarce resources down dead ends that has caused this recession, fall in output and increase in the level of unemployment.
While regulations can be part of a solution, they have costs of their own. They can potentially stifle good investments which limits economic growth and job creation and they are hard to enforce. It takes a very dedicated civil servant to forgo an investment banker's compensation and work a similar amount of hours in order to be on top of the very fluid and complex world of finance.
The problem with the GS act is that in the 1990's, non commercial banks were starting to circumvent the rule by having people set up deposit accounts, which they would then invest in stocks and bonds and those millions of small depositors would have either been wiped out or would have needed a bailout themselves, if they had their money in Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns and other insolvent investment banks.
What matters most is how the incentives are arranged and Washington's dealings with Wall Street should not be about rewards and privileges nor should it be about retribution and punishment, it should be about setting up a regime where firms are allowed to fail and small investors and depositors would get expanded FDIC protection but share holders, policy holders and management would have to eat it if they decide to take tremendous risks.
The guarantee that gains would be private but losses would be socialized created the incentives and bankers responded to them. To compound the problem, the Fed created too much easy money, which amplified the level of bad investments and it was all of those malinvestments, sending scarce resources down dead ends that has caused this recession, fall in output and increase in the level of unemployment.
While regulations can be part of a solution, they have costs of their own. They can potentially stifle good investments which limits economic growth and job creation and they are hard to enforce. It takes a very dedicated civil servant to forgo an investment banker's compensation and work a similar amount of hours in order to be on top of the very fluid and complex world of finance.
The problem with the GS act is that in the 1990's, non commercial banks were starting to circumvent the rule by having people set up deposit accounts, which they would then invest in stocks and bonds and those millions of small depositors would have either been wiped out or would have needed a bailout themselves, if they had their money in Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns and other insolvent investment banks.
What matters most is how the incentives are arranged and Washington's dealings with Wall Street should not be about rewards and privileges nor should it be about retribution and punishment, it should be about setting up a regime where firms are allowed to fail and small investors and depositors would get expanded FDIC protection but share holders, policy holders and management would have to eat it if they decide to take tremendous risks.
- 10,416
- 1,652
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2007
sounds good to me
- 6,782
- 18
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
Till this day, I do not know why Cheney was chosen over Romney
Harvard JD/MBA dual degree?
CEO of Bain & Company
Founded Bain Capital (PE shop)
I'm pretty sure this guy was better equipped to handle financial crisis in America during the Election period then Cheney
- 36,415
- 11,199
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
Too liberal...Originally Posted by ThrowedInDaGame
Till this day, I do not know why Cheney was chosen over Romney
Harvard JD/MBA dual degree?
CEO of Bain & Company
Founded Bain Capital (PE shop)
I'm pretty sure this guy was better equipped to handle financial crisis in America during the Election period then Cheney
It is hilarious to me but that is the explanation I have heard at least a dozen times.
No way he wins 2012, his chance was 2008, to take the nomination for Republicans but they went crazy. Or get VP nomination to at least get his foot in the door..
But I have the least amount of disgust towards him than any republican who ran in 2008 or is rumored today.. Still though he won't win...
- 2,877
- 128
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
blah blah blah. You probably didnt even vote. If that is the case then you have no reason to complain.
The McCain/Palin hicks are just salty and want to critique everything that President Obama does.
D
Deleted member 38182
Guest
i <3 Mitt Romney
