likearock

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,493645,00.html

Worst case: all the major US banks collapse. Since the banks are so interlinked over the years, once the majors fail, the smaller ones follow suit. Some people panic and withdraw their money in time, others count on the FDIC. People wait for months to get reimbursed by the FDIC. The FDIC has to get the Fed to print trillions because China damn sure won't lend us any more money. We end up shelling out much more than we would have in any bailout but it's too late to fix anything. The next ten years make Japan's "lost decade" look like a walk in the park. Best case: somehow Obama and his team figure out a way out of this mess. It will cost us money though, there's no way around that. Cutting taxes alone is of limited value when half a million people a month are getting laid off.

Remember a bank's liabilities are its deposits therefore, the 2T is what would need to be covered Banks have diversified in the days since _It's a Wonderful Life_ Within the US, as of June last year the deposits in insured subsidiaries only totalled $260B with the bulk of $219B in Citibank, NA and only $89B of that actually insured. They've used that to get themselves into all sorts of other trouble. As I said, the 89B total was for the older $100,000 threshold. The total assuming a $250,000 threshold could be considerably higher. But a bigger concern would be the overall effect on Citi's collapse on other financial institutions. In the wake of what happened with Bear and Lehman (both of whose size was miniscule compared to Citi), you could have several more major institutions topple as well. Then you have a full fledged panic on your hands. As bad as you think it is now, it could get much worse.

I don't know if I'd call it miniscule. In this article, he puts the total deposits at 266B with 89B within the old $100,000 threshold. The extra coverage to $250,000 would put that number higher. Then again, the impact of another 300,000 unemployed would not help the economy either.

I care. It's a fucking crime that Hank Aaron, who played by the rules, doesn't still have his record. The only ones who passed him were juiced.

"Just let them fail," you say? You realize of course that when a bank fails, all its FDIC-insured deposits would have to be covered, ultimately by the American taxpayer. That's what makes bailing out banks so different than bailing out any other corporation. I've been trying to find out how much it would cost us - how many dollars would actually be covered by FDIC if say Citi were to fail. Anyone have an idea?

Whether or not it's a good idea in theory, this is the worst possible time for a consumption tax. Nobody's buying anything and that's leading to more people getting laid off. The more people laid off the less people with disposable income who are able to consume. We need to encourage consumption, not discourage it.

A week old but still on point: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/217132/january-29-2009/the-word---the-audacity-of-nope

The Dems are still making it competitive.

since the voting here says she should go, mabey it would be good if she did go. might be better for Obama if she left. That's hilarious. I think you have a somewhat exaggerated sense of how influential this forum really is. I disagree. I'm sending a copy of this thread to the President right away. Keep your eye peeled on the news. Thank God he kept his blackberry.

since the voting here says she should go, mabey it would be good if she did go. might be better for Obama if she left. That's hilarious. I think you have a somewhat exaggerated sense of how influential this forum really is.

Divide and conquer. The oldest trick in the book.

Definitely. Those arrests were a disgrace from the very beginning. So agents who break the law aren't a disgrace, but arresting them for it is? Got it. You're right. I felt much safer with those false report filers in jail and a dangerous drug smuggler given full immunity for testifying against them. Thanks for clearing that up! Hey, if you're cool with cops shooting people in the back and covering it up, more power to ya. Personally, I've met too many dumb and/or bully cops to think they should be afforded that kind of power. Then again, I don't really give a shit whether people smuggle drugs. Yeah, me neither. Who cares that the smugglers subsidize some of the most violent gangs in the world? Who cares that they have reduced the border towns to centers of murder and kidnapping? Pass the bong, dude!

Definitely. Those arrests were a disgrace from the very beginning. So agents who break the law aren't a disgrace, but arresting them for it is? Got it. You're right. I felt much safer with those false report filers in jail and a dangerous drug smuggler given full immunity for testifying against them. Thanks for clearing that up!

Faxlori was talking about what the Gazans could have done between 2005 and 2007 - before Hamas came to power.

Definitely. Those arrests were a disgrace from the very beginning.

As a therapist, I'm sure you're aware that healing is not always synonymous with symptoms going away. The traumatic effects may recede from immediate awareness but, unless the root causes are treated, the symptoms will very likely recur, often in times of stress.

One

However, if the results of the study you mentioned are correct, it would be better for those people to not pursue therapy. Are you now saying you disagree with those findings and believe that people with PTSD should have therapy?

Aren't we getting a little too serious about this? Nobody's sitting on a jury, if the poll shows more yeses than nos nobody goes to jail. It's a Speaker's Corner poll ffs. Yeah, I know that if he is convicted by a jury, most people here will say he should go to jail. That's a no brainer. The more interesting question is, given the information that's come to light so far, do you think JJJr has participated in PtP or not? So far it looks like 2 to 1, people think he did.

"Protect" Jackson how, by besmirching his name and reputation? Bad as it is to have your name besmirched, most people would take that over doing years of hard time. IMHO, no one is going to jail for this, neither Jackson nor Blagojevich. The most Blago will get is a suspended sentence. Why? Because, for whatever reason, they pulled the plug too early. There was no overt act, only a lot of talk, which any competent defense attorney will dance around without too much difficulty. And in the end, we'll probably never know the full extent of this corruption.

On NPR this morning that question came up in an interview with a prosecutor, (not involved in the case). His explanation was that Fitzgerald had to "spring the trap early", else there would have been public furor over having a sitting senator who had been appointed by fraud. I don't buy it. You go public the moment after the appointment is made. You explain that you needed an overt act to secure a conviction. People can understand that. The alternative is to be left with this lukewarm case where the governor can always claim he was just talking shit all along.

It is very reasonable. Like my avatar? I can get it for you cheap!

Technically true. However, is it reasonable to think that they were acting completely on their own without Jackson's knowledge? He's the one that gets the Senate seat. BTW, a lot has been said about why Fitzgerald pulled the plug before an actual exchange took place. That's usually SOP in cases like this to bolster the case. In fact, there are several legal analysts that say Blago may walk because there was no actual tit for tat. Here's a theory: what if Fitzgerald wanted to protect Jackson before he actually compromised himself on the wire tap? Just a theory of course but does anyone else have a better explanation?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jclordTOUrAKPT4gqF4lTowSgNDQD9516IKO4 Report: Jackson backers sought cash for Ill. gov. CHICAGO (AP) — Businessmen with ties to both Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson discussed raising $1 million for Blagojevich to help persuade him to appoint Jackson to President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat, according to a published report. Citing unnamed sources, the Chicago Tribune reports in a story for Friday's editions that businessman Raghuveer Nayak and Blagojevich aide Rajinder Bedi told attendees at an Oct. 31 meeting that they needed to raise the money for the governor to ensure Jackson's appointment. "Raghu said he needed to raise a million for Rod to make sure Jesse got the seat," an unidentified source who attended the meeting told the Tribune. Blagojevich also attended the meeting, which was sponsored by Nayak, an Oak Brook businessman. A message left at a listing for Raghuveer Nayak in Oak Brook was not immediately returned early Friday. No published listing for Bedi could be found. Blagojevich was arrested Tuesday on federal corruption charges that allege, among other things, a brazen scheme to put Obama's vacant Senate seat up for sale. According to the FBI complaint, the Oct. 31 meeting took place the same day federal prosecutors intercepted a conversation in which Blagojevich claims he'd been approached by a representative for an unnamed "Senate Candidate 5" who offered cash in exchange for the Senate seat. On Wednesday, it was revealed that Jackson was the candidate. "We were approached 'pay to play,'" Blagojevich said in the call. The candidate would raise $500,000 for Blagojevich, and an emissary would raise an additional $1 million, according to the conversation. Jackson spokesman Rick Bryant told the Tribune that while Jackson discussed the Senate seat with Nayak, he never asked him to do anything. Nayak, 54, has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Blagojevich and is also close to the Jackson family. Bedi has also been a Blagojevich fundraiser. The Oct. 31 meeting led to a Blagojevich fundraiser held Saturday that was co-sponsored by Nayak. The governor attended, as did Jackson's brother Jonathan, who went into business with Nayak several years ago, according to the newspaper report. Two days later, Jackson met with Blagojevich to discuss the Senate seat. Information from: Chicago Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com