Another Great Depression ?

[Dexi]

Lots of talk here (UK) about banning some kinds of short selling....is this just envy because of the large amounts traders are making or will it work and stop the market collapse....

[chuckwoww]

Will it work? I definitely think it's worth trying. Short sellers have had it too easy. Half the time they don't even borrow the stock they're selling. Only trouble is I might have to find another source of income.

[Dexi]

I`m not an expert here but couldn`t traders just switch to spread betting ....? maybe that would be less " destructive "....Short sellers are taking a lot of flack now but aren`t they just taking advantage of a downward spiral that would happen anyway.....ps. if you want to borrow some HBOS shares for a small fee,I have some available

[chuckwoww]

I'm not a pro. I just dabble. There's a popular view that short sellers are evil. It isn't really fair IMO. But it does seem like fear wins out over greed most of the time. And once panic selling starts it's hard to stop.

 

You can keep your HBOS thanks. I've done OK out of this little sell off. But I think I'll stay out of the market until the dust settles.

[khun_khon_neua]

I donâ??t have a problem with short selling and I think they often get a bad rap. Interesting thing about going short on a stock, technically, it is one of the few plays where there is no limit to your downside, it could go on forever, as long as the stock keeps going up. In most cases your limit is zero, not so with going short, your limit is infinity.

 

[chuckwoww]

People are weird. They see a stock going up so they buy. They see it going down so they sell. It's like this credit crisis....when things were going well everybody was happy...when things go south they panic. It's human nature.

[loner w/a boner]

Ya know, you righties always talk about "welfare."

Not always. Sometimes we talk about blowing people up and Jesus, and stuff.

 

But that ceased to exist in 1996 under Clinton. I maintain that it is a very small number.

Well, it didn't cease to exist, it was converted. I took your advice and did some research (what the hell, hehehe). It is in the post immediately below this one.

 

But when you look at ALL the handouts, not just welfare (TAFN), but medicare, medicaid, corporate welfare, bailouts, funding other nations national defenses, sheeeeeesh!

 

Soooo, I'd really appreciate it if you could tell me just how much we spend in welfare. Ballpark is fine, but provide links to legitimate sources (GAO docs or something).

Some of this info is in the post below. Not finished chasing all these numbers down. Internet at home is on the fritz and so I don't go online hardly at all on the weekends. Should be back Monday or Tues, though.

 

SD -- loves clearing out misconceptions

My idea of a "misconception" is cumming in her mouth so I don't have to worry about it.

 

Cheers!

 

[loner w/a boner]

Hey SD!

 

Been doing a little research. Hate to be bothered with things like that, but you piqued my curiosity. Didn't remember hearing about this in the news at the time. Also noticed he supported the "Defense of Marriage Act", the Brady Bill (booooooo) and shortly after HillaryCare collapsed, 2 months later, they lost the house to the Repubs.

 

Seems the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was introduced by a Florida Republican, Claw Shaw, but supported by Clinton and passed by a Republican congress. Seems that "Between 1936 and 1969, the number of families receiving support increased from 162,000 to 1,875,000." (per Wackypedia); but that's just AFDC.

 

Seems Tommy Thompson gov of Wisconsin in the late 80s early 90s instituted "Workfare" requiring single moms to work to receive benefits. Bush 41 later appointed him to Health & Human Svcs Secretary. (small world).

 

Apparently the act created TANF (Temp Assist for Needy Families) and directed the STATES to end welfare as an entitlement, place a lifetime limit of 5 years on federal funds. (where the fuck was I when this was in the news--in a ganja cloud???)

 

Here's an interesting Wiki quote, "Between 1997 and 2000, enormous numbers of the poor have left or been terminated from the program, with a national drop of 53% in total recipients.[10] Since there is less training and education available than with the earlier JOBS program, these "last hired, first fired" recipients have been returning to welfare and the caseloads have been increasing.". Now it's going back up. After 2000? So, that would be Bush 43's watch, right???

 

Further comments in Wiki state that, as far as reducing poverty, lifting incomes, etc...it has totally failed. It did reduce the number of "caseloads". That's fine with me. I want to see poverty reduced--not by the govt taking anyone's money, but by non-productive people becoming productive. How do the weak become strong? Not be depending on other people, that just makes them more dependent.

 

It's worth noting that Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating. What's congresses now? 8% was the last I heard.

 

Hmmm, the Heritage Foundation says that the US Census Bureau says there are 37 million Americans in poverty, as of 2005. That's close to 10% of population, perhaps a tad under. Of course, the govt says that inflation is around 3% (yeah, right). I don't know the exact scam they use to measure it, though (more research???--doh!)

 

Ah, these stats, according to heritage: 46% of the "poor" own homes, 75% own a car, 30% own 2 cars, 62% have cable or satellite tv, hahahaha.

 

Here is an interesting article about budgeting and national debt:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2178.cfm

 

Some of the research I'm looking at here says that about 5 million americans are on direct welfare. Of course that doesn't count HUD, medicade,etc...

 

Ya know, it's been years since I've done research on the federal budget / deficit. I'm gonna do a bit of reading. Interesting stuff.

 

Still, I'm not sure if I'm a TOTAL social darwinist, but I lean that way. I mean, if I need money, I'll work for it. If I can't work for it, I'll sell my stuff and do without. If I was desperate, I'd beg. I'd come up to people hat-in-hand. I wouldn't use my voter's registration card as a weapon to steal what isn't mine. I have too much respect for your hard work and private property for that.

 

Cheers!

 

[chuckwoww]

 

Still, I'm not sure if I'm a TOTAL social darwinist, but I lean that way. I mean, if I need money, I'll work for it. If I can't work for it, I'll sell my stuff and do without. If I was desperate, I'd beg. I'd come up to people hat-in-hand. I wouldn't use my voter's registration card as a weapon to steal what isn't mine. I have too much respect for your hard work and private property for that.

 

Cheers!

 

People like you are the salt of the earth. When the government needs money they print it.

 

[gobbledonk]

I have too much respect for your hard work and private property for that.

 

Nice hypothetical, LB, but can you *really* see yourself begging ? I suspect that all your aforesaid respect would take a severe tumble, and you may come to resent those of us with private property : unemployment and crime rates have a solid correlation here in Oz (unfortunately, I dont have the figures to back that up, but spend a few nights in the Western Suburbs of Sydney and let us know how much you enjoyed it...).

 

Our conservatives have a new leader, a filthy rich merchant banker whose first speech was all about how he knows what its like to live in rented flats with very little money : it could be a whole lot worse than that for many who have known nothing but the good times.

 

BTW, isnt it reassuring to see world banks pumping billions into the system to prop up the outcomes of rampant greed at the highest levels of our financial sector. Those Enron guys must be ruing their timing.