“Federal Reserve loans don't come from your tax dollars and you get charged a higher rate because you are at a higher risk for default. In the event of bankruptcy Fed loans have first priority, it would have been nearly impossible for them to not get repaid.”
ReedYoung on May 31, 2011 at 23:40:05
“Wrong. They lend funds minted by our Treasury, and their value derives 100% from the faith and credit of the recipients in the value of OUR work, aka the GNP.”
hamsteronwheel on May 30, 2011 at 11:41:21
“speaking of higher risk of default. who exactly got TRILLIONS in cumulative bailouts?”
“Sounds about right, we're talking about the arm of the government which spends $600B+ per year, but can't be bothered to preform an audit. "It's too hard, we're too big." Tell that to all the public companies who do an audit every year and release financial every 90 days.”
“Maybe I have an opinion on that, but this article has nothing to do with citizens united. Stick to the task at hand, it's a glaring sign of the failure of your argument when you must shift focus to an unrelated subject.”
greenie 61 on Feb 27, 2011 at 16:15:31
“The 2 issues are related, but I suppose I give you too much credit to connect the dots.”
“Walker was elected to do exactly what he's doing. Public employee unions are not that different from the UAW, they're far more willing to see their place of employment go under financially than negotiate a fair employment agreement.
They've spent decades paying for the campaigns of the politicians who sat on the other side of the bargaining table. Hard to label it a fair negotiation when you threaten those politicians with demonizing them to the public.”
Jeanette DeBella Bogue on Feb 27, 2011 at 15:38:12
“show us ONE video of Scott Walker on the campaign trail saying he was going after the unions, JUST ONE!”
greenie 61 on Feb 27, 2011 at 15:27:29
“Why aren't you crying about citizens united?”
ObamAtomic on Feb 27, 2011 at 15:23:31
“He wasn't elected to bust the UNION and give the state to who is his daddies.”
“Your statement reveals a stunning lack of knowledge. The unfunded liability is not what you described, its the present value of future claims for benefits. There's an entire field of actuaries devoted to this subject.
The worse part for Illinois is that they are playing games with the accounting. Illinois' unfunded liability is far worse than what they are publicly saying and on top of that, they've borrowed money to make past payments. Think of it as the consumer paying the minimum balance of one credit card with another credit card which he's only making minimum payments on.
Get your facts straight. If you wonder why the politicians allow such terrible policies to continue, it's because the majority of you voters lack knowledge about such simple stuff.”
“I won't respond to the other comments b/c they are the same old junk. But you, wow.
You're clearly not all that savy on finance, investing, etc., so let me help you out. Wall Street was an enabler to an entire generation of Americans who don't know what they're doing with their money. You might explain that away as Wall Street being a bunch of crooks, but the fact of the matter is millions of American households signed loan contracts that they knew they could not honor. You'll get no sympathy from me on that, it's been immensely profitable to me anyway.
Putting long-term investments in t-bills is about the dumbest thing you could possibly do. They have maturities of less than a year, perhaps you meant t-bonds or t-notes. More likely it's just a sign of your lack of knowledge in this area. Not only is there not enough suppy to allow that incredible dumb investment policy to happen, but it would require governments and by default their employees and tax payers to contribute far more money to meet future obligations.
This is the failure of progressive thinking, none of you are good with numbers or the concrete realities that face the nation. You are, instead, happiest dispensing hugs and telling people that it will be alright, nothing bad will happen to them even if they fail to provide for themselves or be a positive participant in the country.”
frixx on Feb 22, 2011 at 00:00:22
“One HUGE problem with your assessment. Not just the American households signed, so did the international banks as well.
Unfortunately, Bush and Co. may have done irreparable damage to Wall Street credibility for generations to come. Depending, that might be a good or bad thing. But the damage is certainly done.
“This is the end state for the uber-progressive state. Benefits which were always impossible to provide administered by legislators who don't understand what they are doing.
New York, New Jersey, Wisconsin, California, and Illinois. Seem something common in all these places? It's such a shame when your entire political philosophy turns out to be untenable.”
Yosef52 on Feb 19, 2011 at 07:21:46
“What NJ, NY, WI, CA, and IL have in common is that they pay more in FEDERAL taxes than they receive in benefits. They shovel money into the right-wing states, which soak up more dollars than they contribute. If we could get the Red States off of welfare, things would improve greatly.”
Osusuki on Feb 19, 2011 at 01:33:36
“Our political philosophy is doing quite well, thank you. What's a shame is when one set of Republicans drives the country into the ditch, and another set comes along behind them to dispatch any victims left alive after the wreck.
Every state in the country, red, blue or purple, is hurting for money because Wall Street took their investments and went to Monte Carlo for a long weekend. What's wrong with that situation is the very dependence on exotic investments to reduce contributions to pension and other public funds in the first place. What a pity no one learned the obvious lesson of the Orange County Bankruptcy of 1994 and stayed away from risky investments in the first place. If they had put all that money into T-Bills, they would still have it. The Orange County Treasurer did five years of supervised probation for instigating that catastrophe. The people who caused the most recent one are still collecting bonuses at Goldman and JP Morgan Chase. So it's not the progressive political philosophy that failed, but the insane conservative notion that private sector bankers can be trusted with public sector funds sans oversight.”
Andrew Macdonald on Feb 19, 2011 at 00:41:04
tangelan on Feb 18, 2011 at 23:27:22
“Especially, when the GOP wants to keep losing revenue by passing tax cuts. If they ran anything like a business it would fail hard.”
“You know who as always been one of the largest beneficiaries of the problem you describe? Unions.”
HAZ021 on Feb 17, 2011 at 19:53:22
“Very true. Unions just like any other entity should be restricted from funneling funds to politicians in exchange for favorable policy. Still, that fact does not discredit the idea of the union, it merely states that unions should not be able to bribe politicians either.”
jamenta on Feb 17, 2011 at 19:45:54
“It it weren't for Unions we would have no 40 hour work week, sick leave, child labor laws, safer working environments, or better pay. Get real.”
“These unions signs are great, "Walker is Replaceable." Well turns out Walker ran on a platform of replacing the guy holding the sign and the public agreed. A public sector union is the height of folly.”
“Does too big to fail have to always be present in the banking system? No, but fixing it requires a much smarter approach. Basel III started in the right direction before getting off track. It's a relatively simple matter of adjusting the level of equity required based on asset size/risk. Making banks hold more Tier 1 equity the larger they get means that smaller competitors would be able to offer better terms to customers.
That being said, when Dodd and Frank are the ones running your post-Apocalypse cleanup it should surprise none of us that the system is now even worse.”
“"Owning gold [is] mandatory...the global experiment in fiat currency will be deemed a failure in just a few years time."
Gold might not technically be a fiat currency, but it only has value b/c people believe it to be valuable. You seem to blindly assume that the faults of the fiat currency are infinitely greater than that of a gold-standard type system. I'd object to the reasonableness of that assertion and merely point out that while this might be the great recession, it is not the Great Depression. Going to a gold-standard isn't a permanent fix, I'm not sure that you can make that argument.”
“They default b/c they can't get good jobs. They can't get good jobs b/c their education is terrible. Their education is terrible b/c it's selective. Yet more proof that sometimes in life you have to settle for being a dud.”
Ed Baker on Feb 7, 2011 at 13:35:44
“Yes, and most of these "students" are duds. They weren't college material to begin with. Then the for-profit places told them everything they wanted to hear.... "you'll get a big student loan, and much of it you can spend as you like.... you can go to college in your pajamas on your laptop...."
All stuff slackers like this generation love to hear.
So they were stupid and they fell for it. The really bad news is the taxpayers are going to have to pay the bill for them.”
“That implies that you know the difference between speculation and shrewd investing. I would suggest you don't. We could clearly debate the valuation of Facebook, but we don't know their revenue numbers so it's largely pointless.
My concern is that you look at the economy and think that you can distill it to a few concepts (like capital gains should be taxed at the ordinary income rate). The problem is its a complex system and it works best when there's tension in it.”
Birdman372537 on Feb 8, 2011 at 05:58:28
“I won't debate when shrewd investing becomes speculation. Until the dust settles on a particular investment, no one can tell.
Revenue numbers are almost meaningless in determining valuation. That would imply reason and rationality in the Stock Markets when, in fact, they are mostly built on investing based on the "bigger fool" theory.
Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income because it IS ordinary income. Further, tax policy which is extremely progressive tends to make speculation less attractive while moving long term growth concerns to a more important position in the investment decision process.
While getting rich quick is the American dream, it is a nightmare for financial stability in our markets. Traders, of course, love unsettled markets because it's easier to make money when prices move. Good for them. Tax it away, I say.”
“Good God, you wouldn't have an economy left to tax if you did all that you described above.”
Birdman372537 on Feb 6, 2011 at 04:48:45
“The economy would boom. Money would be spent on things that actually EXIST instead of endless speculation in the financial markets. Any system that values Facebook at $50B is a system that needs to have resources redirected.”
“Ah, well jeez where to start with this mess of thinking. You're on to something when you started thinking about purchasing power, then you went drastically off track with this drivel about economic equality. Look at that list of countries, which of those would you like to be poor in - Venezuela? Argentina?
As I stated in my original post, you can decide on a story and usually find some "facts" to support it. I look at the article and say, "Great, but he's attempting to argue that the average worker is now worse off than he was in the 1970s." Maybe he's worse off in relation to the richest people, but he's certainly not worse off compared to himself. You're building a fallacious argument and you won't find anyone of serious intellect who defends it.”
IrishTouch on Feb 5, 2011 at 19:25:06
“I'm going to have disagree to that last statement you made - the "he's certainly not worse off compared to himself." I beg to differ. "The Great Recession" as its been coined has cause millions of previously comfortable middle class citizens to lose all of their savings, their retirement funds, their college funds, and their homes due to massive losses in employment. Today, these millions are lucky to find $8.00/hr jobs while watching America's largest corporations creating thousands of jobs overseas while profiting like never before off cheap labor. Go ahead and believe that "he's certainly not worse off compared to himself," but knowing many that have lost everything, I will defend some truth to the "average worker is now worse off than he was in the 1970's.”
Robert SF on Feb 4, 2011 at 13:32:14
“"Maybe he's worse off in relation to the richest people, but he's certainly not worse off compared to himself."
As recent psychological research confirms, the real problem isn't poverty in absolute terms but in relative terms. When the gap between rich and poor is small, as it was in the US in the 70s, there is little feeling of social injustice. When that gap is big, people begin thinking the game is rigged. And it is.”
“When a corporation walks away from debt, the entire corporation is seized by creditors. Corporate bonds and loans are generally full recourse, meaning the lender can seize anything that the corporation holds to pay off the debt.
I'll take a wild guess and say that you don't want individual homeowners treated that way.”
Cihangir on Feb 5, 2011 at 00:26:14
“I suggest you notice the difference between theory and reality.”
“Well here's a thought, did any of you actually look up the mechanic's wages? Nope, b/c I know my data is correct. You've also made a large mistake in comparing private sector to public sector mechanics. Most of these highly paid private mechanics (who in fact do not clear 60K) are running their own shops. They absorb far greater risks and do not have the same benefits (retirement, healthcare, etc). The fully burdened labor rate of de Alba is best guess some 50-75% higher than that of the private sector.
But not withstanding that you are all completely wrong on private vs. public salaries for mechanics, why does de Alba continue to work for the city? By your own statements you seem to imply that he's earning less. Is he then some sort of good samaritan? Perhaps he never talks to other mechanics and so doesn't know that they earn so much more than him.
Anyway, before my revel to much in my sarcasm, you're wrong. His fully burdened wage exceeds that of the private sector, o/w he'd quit.”
“Good thing Peter's a semi-journalist not an economist. You'd be hard pressed to find a serious one that will tell you wages can rise beyond the rate of inflation and productivity for any length of time. I have the same issue with this article as I do with generally all Huffpost writing, the author has a story and works in some facts to back it up. Never mind that all these "facts" don't really say what he believes they do, thankfully the average Huffpost reader understands less about finance/economics than they do about making thoughtful arguments.”
madame48 on Feb 3, 2011 at 20:13:40
“look at the actual stats..counting education .then get back to us”
Robert SF on Feb 3, 2011 at 13:54:29
“Except in terms of purchasing power, worker wages did rise every decade between 1820 and 1970. That rise stopped in the 70s, at which point the rise in the upper income levels started rising at a faster rate then before. In 1970, we were the least unequal society in the world. Even countries like Denmark and Sweden had worse economic equality back then. Today, our economic equality is somewhat better than Venezuela's and somewhat worse than Argentina's.”
marijam on Feb 3, 2011 at 12:37:23
“Productivity is UP, it's way up but the workers have not seen any gains. That's the problem.”
peaceandfreedom on Feb 3, 2011 at 12:32:36
“Wow. Care to refute a few of his points, or are you content just to spew?”