The Observation Deck

Thealexa Becker wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Mr. Eisel, despite the lengthy list of statistics you have provided and the fact that you are quick to assert that anyone who disagrees with you must get their information from bad sources,

Where did I assert that anyone who disagrees with me got their infor for a bad source?

Again, please give me an example where I asserted that anyone who disagrees with me got their info from a bad source. Thanks

You said that people shouldn't trust the media or the Observer for their information very early in the thread.

After Sarah Palin's visit to Lakewood Park, I quit trusting the Lakewood Observer.

Thealexa Becker wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Thealexa Becker wrote:Mr. Eisel, would it be possible for you to be a little more courteous instead of sarcastic?

It seems like all you are doing is bludgeoning everyone with your points without being willing to accept any other rationales or perspectives. It is very difficult to hold any kind of conversation with a person who doesn't seem to care about other people's opinions.

This I find highly ironic since the people you are blaming for this economic crisis would have had the same attitude towards those who you claim knew what was going on. They too probably aggressively pushed them to the side and insisted they were wrong.

And again I ask, how long have you known about this crisis? Because it seems like you just jumped on the bandwagon of people hurling blame after the fact.

We live in an imperfect world and I perfectly reflect that world. Accept me for who I am or ignore me

Which is probably the biggest cop-out in the history of the world, shifting blame for how you are acting to the world being imperfect. Not a very good excuse. And I would not argue that you are a very good representation of the "world". Not everyone insists on being so narrow-minded.

I wish that you could pick on my humor in my post like you pick up on my sarcasm. And, I see that you also practice what your preach..

Not everyone insists on being so narrow-minded.

Narro-minded? Because I disagree with you?


PS Have you been to Area 51?

Thealexa Becker wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Mr. Eisel, despite the lengthy list of statistics you have provided and the fact that you are quick to assert that anyone who disagrees with you must get their information from bad sources,

Where did I assert that anyone who disagrees with me got their infor for a bad source?

Again, please give me an example where I asserted that anyone who disagrees with me got their info from a bad source. Thanks

You said that people shouldn't trust the media or the Observer for their information very early in the thread.

I think that you missed the wink, the smiley guy, the sarcasm and the truth.

This is what happens when you depend upon the drive by media or the Lakewood Observer for your news

I am wondering when you will tire of talking to yourself. The last 4-5 replies were from you. Must be tiring.

Stephen Eisel wrote: After Sarah Palin's visit to Lakewood Park, I quit trusting the Lakewood Observer.

Was that a personal shot? Since I wrote both the articles on the rally and I was absolutely positive I was objective in one of them. The other was a non-partisan opinion piece.

Lets be nice everybody

okay, I had pretty much sworn off posting in the Global Discussion area, but I can't help it.

My Thoughts...

Although it was a while ago, the one thing I remember about my macro-economics classes in college was the discussion week one, where the professor pointed out that discussion of national and especially global economic policy is akin to theology. There are no "wind tunnels" large enough to test anything accurately, or that can account for the almost endless number of variables (including human emotion and large group dynamics) as to be able to PROVE any specific theory. In the end, what works in one setting, might not be viable in another, no matter how similar the setting seems.

Actually proving a macroeconomic theory is like nailing jello to the wall.

That said. I will ALWAYS try to give any administration at least the benefit of the doubt when trying something new. However, I personally don't think that government spending is the way to go, but not because I don't think that it MIGHT jump start things, it's because I think one of the underlying reasons we got into this situation was due to irresponsible spending in the first place. And I don't believe that you can spend your way out of debt.

To me, this isn't a Democrat problem, this isn't a Republican problem, this is an AMERICAN problem. As a country, we've gotten soft. We feel we're entitled to way too much, be it a new tv, a big house, or even a large paycheck. Too many people have been asking "CAN I buy this or that?" instead of asking "SHOULD I buy this or that?"

The sooner we go back to being individually financially responsible, the sooner that responsiblility will seep back into the corporate world, and then back into politics.

You cannot legislate this kind of change. It has to start in each and every home and family. There is no quick fix. And there is no avoiding the hard work and struggle to regain what we've lost.

Just my thoughts.

It is not completely impossible. The Fannie and Freddie bailout forced the government to print hundreds of billions of dollars. I am only guessing but this printing probably had a negative impact on the stockmarket, price indices and inflation. Long term, the printing will probably impact the GNP, consumer debt, unemployment and the value of the dollar.

Guessing?!?!

Yeah, I know you are guessing. It's a worthwhile admission.

So you've travelled from guessing that Fannie/Freddie played the crucial role in the financial mess to figuring that their bailout causes the Fed to, as you say, "print money."

Of course the Fed prints a lot of money for all sorts of reasons. One vector to consider is the magnitude of Fannie and Freddie's position in the mortgage market compared to the positions of all the other entities in the same market.

But we've had our breakthrough in learning that you are guessing as well as regurgitating right wind talking points rather than investigating credible sources which might--potentially--support your original hypothesis.

I've made no claim myself and won't do so until you give me something nutritious to chew on.

Sarcasm!

Wow, I'm gone for a few days and come back with this fascinating thread.

There are some things here I agree with and somethings which I disagree.

Brett stated very well:

To me, this isn't a Democrat problem, this isn't a Republican problem, this is an AMERICAN problem.

Every Democrat will blame this on the Republicans (and I'm a Dem, so I think it is their problem) and I'm sure every Republican will try to blame it on the Dems. But that really gets us nowhere. The question is what do we do now?

I completely disagree with Bill Call, (with whom I often agree) that Obama doesn't want to fix this problem. He is very cognizant of history and he certainly doesn't want to be seen as a Herbert Hoover, he wants to be seen as the savior of the economy. He wants to fix the problems, he wants to be a hero.

For Obama to be successful, he has to 1) Fix the Economy, 2) Get us out of Iraq and 3) Keep us safe. Anything else is gravy. Get National Health Care, Stop Global Warming, Solve the Middle East Conflict all icing on the cake but worthless if he doesn't do the first 3.

So I assume that the president really, really wants to solve the economic crisis. With a few exceptions from people like Rush, I assume most of the Republicans do as well.

One large portion of the bill is to assist the states with the record and unexpected unemployment insurance. No one is disagreeing with that. Sure that is spending, but it is the safety net and the state is running out of money.

Now the Senate removed the part to help with health care for the unemployed and I agree with them. We need National health care, but why should unemployed people get it when many, many people that are working every day not get it? And many of these people didn't get it in their previous jobs.

I like some of the focused tax cuts, like claiming the interest for a new car on your taxes, like you can a mortgage. But tax rebates like the 600. we got last year really doesn't help. People are using it to pay off their bills or saving it in case they have some bad times. Just like the banks did with the first round of TARP money. They didn't stimulate the economy, they horded or bought foreign banks. Or gave themselves bonuses for creating the disaster. Maybe the goverment assisted in the problem, but it was the bankers that were ultimately responsible for it.

History has proved that just tax breaks doesn't really help that much. A dollar of tax break gives you just a dollar back, if that. Whereas creating jobs creates more than a dollar. Infrastructure jobs are super, if the state already has the plans on the shelf. (I don't think Lakewood has any.)

I love the winterization program which is a win, win, win win situation in that people get jobs, young people (or anyone) learn how to winterize homes, homeowners reduce their cost and we as Americans reduce our dependance on foreign oil, And this is immediate. I love the health care system computerizing their records. (and I hate big brother) but this puts people to work in good paying jobs and reduces health care costs in the long run which benefits everyone, governmnet, businesses and everyday citizens. Health Care costs in the US are higher than almost anywhere and our overall health care system ranks below Costa Ricas.

Are these spending programs? Or are they stimulus. I guess it depends on how you look at them. Kind of a glass half full or half empty metaphor. If you want to see the negative or the positive.

To some extent, my free market buddies are right. Eventually the free market will remedy the situation. But do we want to wait that long? Do we want to watch the suffering of hundreds of thousands of our citizens? Do we want to see families that had good jobs living on the street and eating handouts from churches?

We are already a quasi socialist country. We provide unemployment - but the states won't be able to much longer and even people that want jobs can't find them now. So it sems fair that we extend unemployment until it is reasonable that the average unemployed individual can get a job.

We have already agreed that we are quasi socialist, we have public schools, police, fire dept, libraries and welfare. And we have had government spending projects on infrastructure since roads were here in the country. Likewise the first municipal windmill was developed at NASA Lewis in Cleveland so spending on energy and science is nothing new.

So all of a sudden in a time of great need, why are we arguing about whether this is quasi socialist or not? Get people back on their feet, with jobs, then have this discussion.

I think everyone can find aspects of this bill that they like, and aspects that they don't. Unfortunately it is different for everyone. It is a compromise. Neither the Dems or the Republicans are happy with it. That means one of 2 things, either it is all crummy or pretty darn good.

How do you tell which? If both the Dems and the Republicans were critizing the same things, I would say can it. But they aren't. The Dems are saying too many tax cuts and the Republicans are saying not enough tax cuts and too many programs to create jobs (which they call spending).
My take is that is a pretty fair compromise between the two idealogies. So I think it should work. Half of both thought processes.

I pray and I think everyone of good will that wants America to succeed should pray that it will work. Because then America wins. And we need it to.

Steve Calhoun wrote:This is your hypothesis. Now back it up with quantitative evidence from a credible scholarly or studious source.

Steve Calhoun wrote: I fully expect you to react with lots of irrelevant clicky and fallacious appeals and illogic and reams more polemics and jejune propaganda. Well, this is your standard operating procedure here on the deck, right?

Steve Calhoun wrote:Of course you could prove me wrong by bringing to the table anything intelligently rendered and scientific and rational. If you know "so much" this should be easy for you to do.

The article is not a slam dunk endorsement of my "hypothesis" but it did influence / help shape my opinion. I would consider the WSJ a "studios source". Also, the article is non scientific article but it still make sseveral good points .


PS Good post Brett... You got my thinking... I can hear the gerbil wheel squeaking..


Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess

Mr. Calomiris is a professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Wallison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was general counsel of the Treasury Department in the Reagan administration.

In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent.

Many monumental errors and misjudgments contributed to the acute financial turmoil in which we now find ourselves. Nevertheless, the vast accumulation of toxic mortgage debt that poisoned the global financial system was driven by the aggressive buying of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, and mortgage-backed securities, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The poor choices of these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) -- and their sponsors in Washington -- are largely to blame for our current mess.

If the Democrats had let the 2005 legislation come to a vote, the huge growth in the subprime and Alt-A loan portfolios of Fannie and Freddie could not have occurred, and the scale of the financial meltdown would have been substantially less. The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005-2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it.

So the real question is where in the world were all the economists? Why wasn't there a greater outcry for regulation over all the financial markets? How come the Bush administration's economic advisors weren't on the ball here and telling the president to get out in front of this crisis?

Greenspan cried!

http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/19/news/ec ... an_fannie/

Over the past few years Greenspan has moved from some gentle nudging of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to Thursday's outright criticism. In particular, he singled out Fannie's and Freddie's giant portfolios of mortgage-backed securities as being too risky to back up the mortgage finance system in the event of a crisis, and argued that only ultra-safe, ultra-conservative U.S. Treasury bonds would do the trick.

"Indeed, only such highly liquid portfolios would be consistent with (government-sponsored enterprises') mission of providing primary mortgage market liquidity during a crisis, particularly a financial crisis," Greenspan said.

The outcome of this debate has important implications for consumers. In the short-term, if Congress reins in Fannie and Freddie by putting stricter limits on the size of the portfolios they can build, the amount of mortgage financing they can issue, and the kinds of securities they can hold in, this could -- all else being equal -- mean their cost of borrowing would rise and the cost of home mortgage loans could go up, resulting higher mortgage rates for home buyers.

In the longer run, if such a move were to make Fannie's and Freddie's investment base less risky, it could mean that the U.S. financial system would be able to weather storms such as a recession or a big pullback in the housing market without any kind of meltdown.

I have to hand it to you, at least the article "Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess" offers your canard in a single place. Yu posted if before too I recollect.

As I mentioned before, putting the GSE role in a context where it is made clear what effects the GSE's caused against all other effects would go a long way to at least sorting out a crude picture of cause and effect.

But it's obvious to me that you're in way over your head because you won't drag yourself over to the scholarly sources to learn about what the role of the GSE's was.

Instead you offer an editorial from the WSJ!

Obviously I won't hold my breath. You won't line up any research and it's apparent to me today that you do not know how to do so.

The financial crisis has a lot of moving parts. It's complicated. It's history tracks back. I already offered a clue to a scholarly source about this history. There's plenty of blame to go around. The crisis is well researched and the scholars are busy as this is written. Thus: I'm not asking you to do anything hard.

However, your propensity to drag out right wing talking points is well known and I do not expect a different behavior to pop up all of a sudden because you suddenly decide to smartly inform yourself.

Stephen C


I hope that some day soon that you find true inner peace and heal from any tramautic event in your life that has caused you harm or pain. I would love to do a Reiki session with you sometime in the future. If you are interested then please PM me. Peace!

Holding onto anger is like grasping onto a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else. You are the one who gets burned.
Gautama Buddha