Headlines...

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p><em>"Check out naked shorting today."</em></p>

<p>Be careful what you say here. Nude might lose his sock with comments like that.</p>

<p>What's with all the Bush bashing? Do you really think that the Daily Show with Jon Stewart would be as funny and successful without him? I mean think about it. When in history has a President needed the teleprompter to spell words phonetically? You can't make these things up.</p>

<p>Hey the good thing about the falling dollar is our trade deficit will decline. </p>
 
<p><em>"Be careful what you say here. Nude might lose his sock with comments like that".</em></p>

<p>ROTFLMAO</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>Graphrix, </p>

<p>Sadly, "naked" and "short" go together like peas and carrrots when talking about me and my sock. </p>

<p>As for Bush, let me reiterate that I'm not defending him. But it doesn't do any of us any good to confuse the facts and further muddy the issues with political bias. Keeping the facts straight is the only way to prevent groupthink and mob mentality from overtaking common sense and reasonable action. There are enough things to blame on Bush without resorting to intentional misplacement in order to further a cause. Besides, wrongly blaming a person for something they have no personal control over sets a dangerous precedent for the future and will lead to further manipulation of data to avoid perceived responsibility. We're already getting enough of that from the media, the news, and every special interest group on the planet so you'll have to excuse me if I try drawing the line when I can.</p>
 
<p><em>"Keeping the facts straight is the only way to prevent groupthink and mob mentality from overtaking common sense and reasonable action."</em></p>

<p>This is true and the last thing we want on the forums is common knowledge effect. This is what has made the forums a special place that we hear ideas and thoughts that are just common knowledge. As IrvineRenter has said and I agree is that it would become an echo chamber.</p>

<p><em>"Sadly, "naked" and "short" go together like peas and carrrots when talking about me and my sock."</em></p>

<p>Now that is funny!</p>
 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- NetBank Inc., an online bank with $2.5 billion in assets, was shut down by the government on Friday because of an excessive level of mortgage defaults.

<p>It was the largest savings and loan failure since the tail end of the industry's crisis more than 14 years ago. Federal regulators appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. as a receiver for Alpharetta, Ga.-based NetBank.</p>
 
<p><em>>>without resorting to intentional misplacement in order to further a cause.





When did I get a cause?</em> </p>

<p>Sorry Eva, I inferred from your raspberry comment that your "cause" was pinning blame for the current dollar woes on Bush. Was that not your intent?</p>
 
Nude,

I’m comfortable blaming Bush and his appointee, Hank. As I recall, the decline in the dollar was a major concern when U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson rode into town. The record US trade deficit isn’t gonna shrink itself. Foreign creditors are lending the U.S. $1.6 million per minute to finance our wasteful spending. I think there is a stark contrast between Paulson and co. and Robert Rubin’s “strong dollar” approach during the Clinton Presidency. America's <em>current account</em> is running a deficit in the neighborhood of $800 billion annually, four times as big as in 1995, when measured as a share of the US economy.
 
<p>Profette, we are also running record deficits (war), and importing (thanks Bill) 4 times as much from China as we were in 1995. But go back and look at Rubin's ability to control the dollar's value. Show me where his policies directly affected the value of the dollar, or where Paulson made a change in the last few weeks to cause it's sudden decline. If you want to lay the blame, then you must also give them the credit for a strong dollar (+110) up to this point, and lay blame at the feet of Rubin/Clinton when this same index spent most of the nineties in the hovering between 85 and 96.</p>

<p>Nevermind, blame Bush. You've made it clear you don't actually care about why the dollar is sinking, and you haven't spent even two minutes looking at the actual data; all you want to do it bash a guy who is 34 months past his final campaign. Do you have anything productive to add to the discussion? A solution, some insight into the Forex markets, anything other than stale and bitter disappointment that your side of the aisle is laughably irrelevant and reduced to posturing to remain viable?</p>
 
To the extent his profligate spending is a factor, yes. But is it a "cause" for me? I think you can look through all 1,000 plus of my comments and see for yourself that the number of political comments I've made can be counted on one hand, and probably less. I'm hardly rallying for any cause.
 
Having a bad day, Nude? Perhaps your writing is being misunderstood, but it comes across shrill rather than as any attempt to educate. That's not the norm for you.
 
<p>Heh, no, Eva, I'm just tired of listening to people blame Bush for everything from global warming to their recently inflammed hemmoroid.</p>

<p>The dollar is sinking because the demand for it is falling. Plain and simple, people are moving their money into other currrencies and commodities because they are no longer making money off the interest differential and/or the MBS that was feeding the housing bubble. Bernake has more influence of that than Bush, Paulson, the Senate, ad nauseum; but even Bernake can't stop the drop. To read comments, of people I otherwise respect, spouting pure BS just sets me off.</p>

<p>Sorry if it's coming off more harshly than is warranted.</p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top