- This topic has 545 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
afx114.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 15, 2011 at 6:22 PM #678425March 15, 2011 at 6:33 PM #677291
CA renter
ParticipantThanks, jp.
I’m working on it. π
edit: Not running for office, LOL! But am trying to get this to him.
March 15, 2011 at 6:33 PM #677349CA renter
ParticipantThanks, jp.
I’m working on it. π
edit: Not running for office, LOL! But am trying to get this to him.
March 15, 2011 at 6:33 PM #677957CA renter
ParticipantThanks, jp.
I’m working on it. π
edit: Not running for office, LOL! But am trying to get this to him.
March 15, 2011 at 6:33 PM #678094CA renter
ParticipantThanks, jp.
I’m working on it. π
edit: Not running for office, LOL! But am trying to get this to him.
March 15, 2011 at 6:33 PM #678435CA renter
ParticipantThanks, jp.
I’m working on it. π
edit: Not running for office, LOL! But am trying to get this to him.
March 15, 2011 at 6:59 PM #677301briansd1
Guest[quote=CA renter]
unions want Wall Street to pay for the damage they created. They all want *Wall Street (and associated parties)* to pay for it, not you.
[/quote]How exactly did Wall Street create state and local government budget problems?
If an individual spent all his bubble earnings, is that caused by Wall Street too?
[quote=CA renter]
In the meantime, back in Realityville, the most successful, democratic, countries with high standards of living tend to have very socialistic (NOT communist — there is a difference) tendencies.See for yourself:
http://www.nationmaster.com/statistics
[/quote]If you’re saying that our system is broken and that it needs reform, I may agree.
If you’re saying that government should intervene to lift people’s earnings, starting with public employees, rather than race to the bottom, I may agree also.
It sounds like you’re saying a more socialistic system, with better distribution of wealth would be better. I think that you are correct there.
But within our existing system, people get paid what the market will bear. Fairness doesn’t really come into play. (I see the bailouts as preserving our way of life prior to the crisis. There was an opportunity to reform at the same time, but we chose not to, I suspect, for fear of making the crisis worse).
I don’t see a huge call for change from the people. In fact the poorest White Americans voters in conservative states seem to want less government involvement, not more.
March 15, 2011 at 6:59 PM #677359briansd1
Guest[quote=CA renter]
unions want Wall Street to pay for the damage they created. They all want *Wall Street (and associated parties)* to pay for it, not you.
[/quote]How exactly did Wall Street create state and local government budget problems?
If an individual spent all his bubble earnings, is that caused by Wall Street too?
[quote=CA renter]
In the meantime, back in Realityville, the most successful, democratic, countries with high standards of living tend to have very socialistic (NOT communist — there is a difference) tendencies.See for yourself:
http://www.nationmaster.com/statistics
[/quote]If you’re saying that our system is broken and that it needs reform, I may agree.
If you’re saying that government should intervene to lift people’s earnings, starting with public employees, rather than race to the bottom, I may agree also.
It sounds like you’re saying a more socialistic system, with better distribution of wealth would be better. I think that you are correct there.
But within our existing system, people get paid what the market will bear. Fairness doesn’t really come into play. (I see the bailouts as preserving our way of life prior to the crisis. There was an opportunity to reform at the same time, but we chose not to, I suspect, for fear of making the crisis worse).
I don’t see a huge call for change from the people. In fact the poorest White Americans voters in conservative states seem to want less government involvement, not more.
March 15, 2011 at 6:59 PM #677967briansd1
Guest[quote=CA renter]
unions want Wall Street to pay for the damage they created. They all want *Wall Street (and associated parties)* to pay for it, not you.
[/quote]How exactly did Wall Street create state and local government budget problems?
If an individual spent all his bubble earnings, is that caused by Wall Street too?
[quote=CA renter]
In the meantime, back in Realityville, the most successful, democratic, countries with high standards of living tend to have very socialistic (NOT communist — there is a difference) tendencies.See for yourself:
http://www.nationmaster.com/statistics
[/quote]If you’re saying that our system is broken and that it needs reform, I may agree.
If you’re saying that government should intervene to lift people’s earnings, starting with public employees, rather than race to the bottom, I may agree also.
It sounds like you’re saying a more socialistic system, with better distribution of wealth would be better. I think that you are correct there.
But within our existing system, people get paid what the market will bear. Fairness doesn’t really come into play. (I see the bailouts as preserving our way of life prior to the crisis. There was an opportunity to reform at the same time, but we chose not to, I suspect, for fear of making the crisis worse).
I don’t see a huge call for change from the people. In fact the poorest White Americans voters in conservative states seem to want less government involvement, not more.
March 15, 2011 at 6:59 PM #678104briansd1
Guest[quote=CA renter]
unions want Wall Street to pay for the damage they created. They all want *Wall Street (and associated parties)* to pay for it, not you.
[/quote]How exactly did Wall Street create state and local government budget problems?
If an individual spent all his bubble earnings, is that caused by Wall Street too?
[quote=CA renter]
In the meantime, back in Realityville, the most successful, democratic, countries with high standards of living tend to have very socialistic (NOT communist — there is a difference) tendencies.See for yourself:
http://www.nationmaster.com/statistics
[/quote]If you’re saying that our system is broken and that it needs reform, I may agree.
If you’re saying that government should intervene to lift people’s earnings, starting with public employees, rather than race to the bottom, I may agree also.
It sounds like you’re saying a more socialistic system, with better distribution of wealth would be better. I think that you are correct there.
But within our existing system, people get paid what the market will bear. Fairness doesn’t really come into play. (I see the bailouts as preserving our way of life prior to the crisis. There was an opportunity to reform at the same time, but we chose not to, I suspect, for fear of making the crisis worse).
I don’t see a huge call for change from the people. In fact the poorest White Americans voters in conservative states seem to want less government involvement, not more.
March 15, 2011 at 6:59 PM #678445briansd1
Guest[quote=CA renter]
unions want Wall Street to pay for the damage they created. They all want *Wall Street (and associated parties)* to pay for it, not you.
[/quote]How exactly did Wall Street create state and local government budget problems?
If an individual spent all his bubble earnings, is that caused by Wall Street too?
[quote=CA renter]
In the meantime, back in Realityville, the most successful, democratic, countries with high standards of living tend to have very socialistic (NOT communist — there is a difference) tendencies.See for yourself:
http://www.nationmaster.com/statistics
[/quote]If you’re saying that our system is broken and that it needs reform, I may agree.
If you’re saying that government should intervene to lift people’s earnings, starting with public employees, rather than race to the bottom, I may agree also.
It sounds like you’re saying a more socialistic system, with better distribution of wealth would be better. I think that you are correct there.
But within our existing system, people get paid what the market will bear. Fairness doesn’t really come into play. (I see the bailouts as preserving our way of life prior to the crisis. There was an opportunity to reform at the same time, but we chose not to, I suspect, for fear of making the crisis worse).
I don’t see a huge call for change from the people. In fact the poorest White Americans voters in conservative states seem to want less government involvement, not more.
March 15, 2011 at 7:56 PM #677306CA renter
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
unions want Wall Street to pay for the damage they created. They all want *Wall Street (and associated parties)* to pay for it, not you.
[/quote]How exactly did Wall Street create state and local government budget problems?
If an individual spent all his bubble earnings, is that caused by Wall Street too?
[/quote]
The problems with respect to the pensions are due to **investment losses,** not spending problems. These investment losses exist for many reasons, but one of the primary reasons is because Wall Street sold these “toxic loans” to the pension funds. The pension funds (that I’m aware of) had fairly large positions in real estate and in MBSs, CDOs, etc. Anyone with two brain cells should have known the losses on these investments would be tremendous. Unfortunately, the large pension funds had begun farming out a lot of their fund management duties to private equity and hedge funds, so they had no idea what they were getting into. They were forced to do this because of the long period of low rates forced upon them by the Fed (and there was some apparent corruption at the top, as well).
March 15, 2011 at 7:56 PM #677364CA renter
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
unions want Wall Street to pay for the damage they created. They all want *Wall Street (and associated parties)* to pay for it, not you.
[/quote]How exactly did Wall Street create state and local government budget problems?
If an individual spent all his bubble earnings, is that caused by Wall Street too?
[/quote]
The problems with respect to the pensions are due to **investment losses,** not spending problems. These investment losses exist for many reasons, but one of the primary reasons is because Wall Street sold these “toxic loans” to the pension funds. The pension funds (that I’m aware of) had fairly large positions in real estate and in MBSs, CDOs, etc. Anyone with two brain cells should have known the losses on these investments would be tremendous. Unfortunately, the large pension funds had begun farming out a lot of their fund management duties to private equity and hedge funds, so they had no idea what they were getting into. They were forced to do this because of the long period of low rates forced upon them by the Fed (and there was some apparent corruption at the top, as well).
March 15, 2011 at 7:56 PM #677972CA renter
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
unions want Wall Street to pay for the damage they created. They all want *Wall Street (and associated parties)* to pay for it, not you.
[/quote]How exactly did Wall Street create state and local government budget problems?
If an individual spent all his bubble earnings, is that caused by Wall Street too?
[/quote]
The problems with respect to the pensions are due to **investment losses,** not spending problems. These investment losses exist for many reasons, but one of the primary reasons is because Wall Street sold these “toxic loans” to the pension funds. The pension funds (that I’m aware of) had fairly large positions in real estate and in MBSs, CDOs, etc. Anyone with two brain cells should have known the losses on these investments would be tremendous. Unfortunately, the large pension funds had begun farming out a lot of their fund management duties to private equity and hedge funds, so they had no idea what they were getting into. They were forced to do this because of the long period of low rates forced upon them by the Fed (and there was some apparent corruption at the top, as well).
March 15, 2011 at 7:56 PM #678109CA renter
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
unions want Wall Street to pay for the damage they created. They all want *Wall Street (and associated parties)* to pay for it, not you.
[/quote]How exactly did Wall Street create state and local government budget problems?
If an individual spent all his bubble earnings, is that caused by Wall Street too?
[/quote]
The problems with respect to the pensions are due to **investment losses,** not spending problems. These investment losses exist for many reasons, but one of the primary reasons is because Wall Street sold these “toxic loans” to the pension funds. The pension funds (that I’m aware of) had fairly large positions in real estate and in MBSs, CDOs, etc. Anyone with two brain cells should have known the losses on these investments would be tremendous. Unfortunately, the large pension funds had begun farming out a lot of their fund management duties to private equity and hedge funds, so they had no idea what they were getting into. They were forced to do this because of the long period of low rates forced upon them by the Fed (and there was some apparent corruption at the top, as well).
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.