Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (261992)	7/19/2010 8:49:14 AM
From: ggersh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

huffingtonpost.com But this is not the only reason that Geithner is opposed to Warren's nomination. I believe Geithner sees the appointment of Elizabeth Warren as a threat to the very scheme he has utilized to date to hide bank losses, thus keeping the banks solvent and out of bankruptcy court and their existing management teams employed and well-paid.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (261992)	7/19/2010 5:24:07 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

tejek, can you comprehend the con as it is explained point by point in this excellent article? Nope. The author is as clear as mud. And its intentional. He's using unique terms to describe different demographic groups so its unclear about whom he's talking. Adding to the confusion are the conspiracy theories he injects into the article periodically. I am sure someone like you loves this crap.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (261992)	7/19/2010 5:48:50 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

The Bush Deficit Bamboozle OK, even by contemporary standards, this is rich: the official Republican stance is now apparently that Bush left behind a budget that was in pretty good shape. Mitch McConnell: The last year of the Bush administration, the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product was 3.2 percent, well within the range of what most economists think is manageable. A year and a half later, it’s almost 10 percent. They really do think that we’re idiots. So, that 3.2 percent number comes from here (pdf). Where’s the bamboozle? Let me count the ways. First, they’re hoping that you won’t know that standard budget data is presented for fiscal years, which start on October 1 of the previous calendar year. So this isn’t the “last year of the Bush administration” — they’ve conveniently lopped off everything that happened post-Lehman — TARP and all. Second, they’re hoping you won’t look at what was happening quarter by quarter. Here’s net federal borrowing as a percentage of GDP, quarter by quarter, since 2007: read more......... krugman.blogs.nytimes.com