It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why aren't the candidates talking about the bank collapses and future economy?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:12 AM
With news just in that Lehman bros. has collapsed; the fourth major financial institution to do so, but they will get no bail out like Freddy and Fannie. Strangely it's just as Titor predicted, here we are in September in the midst of an economic melt down and mums the word with the candidates as to what they plan to do to help us through a depression should one come about. Why aren't they talking about the economy and offer up their respective policy plans for how to deal with it?

Consider the Great Depression, and what huge efforts (The New Deal ) it took to take care of folks and get us out of it and we definately face some tough times ahead. Usually they throw a war to get things moving, but we already have two going and we fund more than 100 bases around the world with a daylight budget of more than 650 billion dollars, and so unless we bring back the draft I don't see this as a realistic option given our current economic standing, among other, perhaps, more compelling reasons not to go to what about massive infrastructure improvements? What about a war time effort and moving folks into alternative energies and even getting a lot of people off the grid and to become self sufficient? Then there's the "how are we going to feed everyone?" problem that would need taken care of in less than a week's notice. I really would like to hear what contingency plans each candidate would support if an emergency situation such as like a modern day Great Depression were to come about.

I'm not trying to be partisan here, but am really curious what everyone (right, left, and center) thinks about this. It could get really nasty during the next term in terms of economic collapse with this massive debt, inflation including skyrocketing energy and heating bills, unemployment and more collapses of banks and industrial firms. Shouldn't this be center stage in every single speech? Is this why there is no true debates going on but rather we get the scripted separated sit downs?

I'm wondering if the reason very little if anything is being said is because as leading candidates they are coached or afraid (or both) to bring it up as it could make things worse? Is it because the reality of what the contingency plans include are extremely disturbing (ie: detention camps)? Are they perhaps just hoping that the present problems that could lead to a titanic problem will just go away by themselves? The silence is deafening!

[edit on 15-9-2008 by skyshow]

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:00 AM
It seems to me that most political figures could give a rats arse about the current economic situation as most of them are loaded with cash and seem to get all the money they need from corporate bribes and it also seems apparent that all they care for is the flashy title and the ability to screw with peoples lives like its a real life strategy game or something. When will this country stand up and kick these A-holes out of office and strip them of all there wealth and put it back into the nations coffers as well as hold Big Business accountable and put into law that they get taxed REGARDLESS it's ridiculous that the average American has to literally work themselves into a grave while housing prices and what not increase while wages don't and some big wig A-Hole gets a multi-million or billion dollar severance package.

Maybe soon? Maybe Never? or Maybe when people start voting for people that are qualified for the job instead of voting for there pro what ever beliefs or religion beliefs or maybe the average Joe should start running for these offices and hit the pavement in search for support and stop voting for rich people as from what I have seen they only look out for themselves and other Richies. This country needs to put into law that all government offices should be held for no more then a few years by anyone.

I know i'm a hopeless dreamer

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:17 AM
reply to post by Aleksander

Wow! Well put. Thanks for your post. I wish we could trade in some of our points to buy 5 stars or maybe a gold one or something; if so I would put one on that post.

What gets me is that the head executives at the last two institutions that were bailed out got millions of dollars in rewards while their companies sunk and the tax payers basically paid them to leave. Maybe the govn't should confiscate it all and put it in a trust fund for use in buying soup for the kitchens that we might have to open up?

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:38 AM
"Why aren't the candidates talking about the bank collapses and future economy?"

Oh, I think its because you don't bite the hand that feeds you or something like that? Same with the media.

And, it might also have something to do with fact that none of your Politian’s has any interest in serving 'You' the people. When are you guys going to actually get this into your thick skulls?

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:14 AM
reply to post by mlmijyd

Perhaps not all, but certainly most of them and history shows that this has indeed been the case. The main reason I am in support of Barack Obama is because he actually has a track record of helping people at the community level before and after graduate school (that he helped pay for with financial aid I might add) and so he may be the closest to "we the people" than anyone else running for high office in quite some time. At least it gives me and millions of others in the US and territories some hope. What troubles me is that neither he nore any of the candidates really are talking about what they would do in the event of total economic collapse, or something similar to a Great Depression.

I have a tender skull by the way. I am reminded of this often when I get my hair done.

Thanks for sharing.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by skyshow]

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:38 AM
Here is a video of Mort Zuckerman on Morning Joe last week.

I think the reason neither candidate will talk about this is because our taxes may (probably) have to go up, and that our ecomony is going to be bad for a while. And any candidate that says that will not be elected.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:12 AM
Yeah I agree with Aleksander on alot of what he said. I hate to say this 90% of American's are either stupid or easily lead automatons. Swallowing anything the media and goverment brain washes them into believing.

I am so sick and tired of people picking candidates because they think they are more God fearing Christain. American's need to wake the hell up. The country is in the worst shape ever. We have so much more to worry about that than which is the better birth control, a condom or a coat hanger.

Also people are mindless sheep. Our goverment has been so corrupt for so long, and why? Because we have all voted in the most corrupt people. When ever they have passed bills and laws that are lets just say not in our best interest and favors the lobbyists. We should be on the phone, writing letters and trying to make them stick to their promises we voted them in for. If for nothing else TO REPRESENT US, not the guy in the corner handing them fat envelopes for vote his way.

What did all these people expect. I knew when Bush allowed that bill that passed in 05 that made it harder for people to file Chapter 7. I knew banks were going to have a field day with that. I knew that some asshat banker was going to raise his eye brows and say hmmmm... I just had no idea of how big a mess that hmmmm... would be. I really didn't think that even the large banks would allow something like that to happen to the degree it did. I guess I was wrong. This looks like BIG GOV and BIG Corps have been pushing this agenda.

God only knows why?!? But last time that is how the IRS came into being. I guess this is how the goverment is going to try to push that NAFTA down our throats? Plausible? It isn't like letting # like that go for so long like walking down a dark tunnel soon your gonna see light, but not the light at the end but on front of the train.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:27 AM
reply to post by GetOutOfMyRabbitHole

Sweet Video, I needed to see a professional perspective on the eceonomy. So we have to pay more taxes? Ugh.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:29 AM

CHICAGO - Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Monday the upheaval on Wall Street was "the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression" and blamed it on policies that he said Republican rival John McCain supports.

Obama's talking about it. So why isn't McCain talking about it? I know he's said he doesn't know anything about economics, and when he tried to talk about it his handlers said McCain doesn't speak about his views on the economics. How that works... IDK.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Krieger]

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:30 AM
I agree with RabbitHole.
Anyone who knows where this economy is headed is not talking about it because we've got some seriously rough times ahead and the candidates don't want to be attached to that in our perceptions. They don't want to be seen as spreading doom and gloom, because who wants to vote for that?

Bush and McCain have been saying that the economy is doing fine, even though they know differently, thinking that will gain the people's vote, because that's what we WANT the reality to be. At least Obama is saying that we have to cut spending and raise taxes to get out of this hole, but I'm certain he knows more than he's saying. Crap, I know more than he's saying! So, he's not innocent in this.

Most of us here on ATS have seen this coming and I feel fortunate in being warned and prepared for it. So, just a quick thanks to the bright minds and forethought of the people here.

Interesting times...

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:41 AM
"Yes we can" and "Drill baby drill" is about as deep into politics as the majority of people will become involved.

Both candidates have talked about the economy they envision. Both live in another dimension as what they are talking about will not happen here.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:43 AM
If large financial institutions like Lehman Bros. are failing, it is because of poor management. It is not the reponsibility of the taxpayer to bail them out when they make fatal mistakes.

Why did Lehman fail? Look at this comparison to Bear Stearns:

Wall Street is in a full meltdown. Bear Stearns (BSC) is gone, so the markets are wondering who's next. The leading contender? Lehman Brothers (LEH).

Lehman's stock dropped 15% on Friday, and it's down by another third in pre-market trading. Some specific concerns:

* Like Bear Stearns, Lehman is relatively small and undiversified.

* Like Bear Stearns, Lehman just reiterated that its "liquidity position is strong."

* Like Bear Stearns, at least one of Lehman's trading partners is cutting it off: The WSJ reports that Southeast Asia's biggest bank, DBS Holdings, has asked traders not to enter new transactions with Lehman Brothers. "DBS has sent an internal e-mail saying it would not deal with Lehman Brothers from now on." [Update: DBS has since re-authorized some Lehman trades]

* Like Bear Stearns, Lehman gambles about $30 for every $1 it has.

* Like Bear Stearns, Lehman chose not to raise additional capital last fall.

* Like Bear Stearns, no one has any idea what's really on Lehman's balance sheet (including, probably, Lehman)

* Unlike Bear Stearns, says an analyst at ING, Lehman is NOT too big to fail, which means that the Fed might not be in such a panic to bail it out.

If Lehman is hellbent on following the Bear Stearns playbook, it will now trot Dick Fuld out onto CNBC to say that the bank is in great shape. And then, a day or two later, it will go bankrupt.

Free market principles do not say the gov't is the ATM for these mis-managed institutions.

Let them fail; the economy will be stronger for it.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by jsobecky]

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 07:55 AM
Ron Paul was warning about this very thing at the very beginning of the campaign. Everyone laughed at him saying he was crazy. So why would they want to talk about it now? They clearly weren't able to see the writing on the wall a year ago.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:01 AM
reply to post by skyshow

I gave you a flag and star just for asking the question!

With all of the hoopla and rancor surrounding the coming national general election of the U.S., it's not a surprise that many have overlooked the importance of what is happening on Wall Street.

The candidates should be talking about this issue. To my knowledge, the only person to ever address it directly is Ron Paul.

My best guess is that the candidates are not talking about Wall Street because they have no answers for it, and to bring up the subject is to remind taxpayers that they are paying to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which by all rational thinking should not be the case. Does the federal government come and bail you out when you can't pay your bills? No, it does not.

Why should the government, at taxpayers expense, bail out private corporations? Isn't that socialism? Doesn't that conflict with the core beliefs of the current administration?

It's much easier to bash candidates and bask in the glow of Obama and Palin, otherwise U.S. citizens would be pressuring to the candidates to come up with some possible answers to Wall Street's problems.

The other thing is the anti-intellectualism that is running through many towns, large and small, rural and urban, in the United States. Many people just do not think that Wall Street has anything to do with them or is any of their business. When the fact of the matter is that, in its current situation, Wall Street's hemorrhaging has everything to do with every U.S. citizen.

If the public and the media were asking candidates about Wall Street, then the candidates would be compelled to deal with the issue. Since neither the public or the media are doing so, the candidates will continue to avoid the issue. To the campaigns of both candidates Wall Street is not an issue until either the public or media makes it one. And that is a shame. McCain and Obama should bring up the subject themselves and offer solutions. That's what Ron Paul did. Though, I think, Paul is cut from a different fabric than McCain or Paul. He's just a bit more forthright and honest about some things -- Wall Street and central banking being among them.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:09 AM
Obama on the Financial Crisis:

"This turmoil is a major threat to our economy and its ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills, save for their future, and make their mortgage payments," the candidate said in a statement.

"The challenges facing our financial system today are more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren't minding the store," Obama said.

"Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression," he said, referring to the mandate of US President George W. Bush.

McCain on the Financial Crisis:

We are carefully monitoring the financial markets, including the duress at Lehman Brothers that is the latest reminder of ineffective regulation and management. Efforts must also be focused on ensuring that the deposits of hardworking Americans are protected.

"It is essential for us to make sure that the U.S. remains the pre-eminent financial market of the world. This will be a highest priority of my Administration. In order to do this, major reform must be made in Washington and on Wall Street. We cannot tolerate a system that handicaps our markets and our banks and places at risk the savings of hard-working Americans and investors. The McCain-Palin Administration will replace the outdated and ineffective patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight in Washington and bring transparency and accountability to Wall Street. We will rebuild confidence in our markets and restore our leadership in the financial world."

It sounds to me as though Obama is being more honest about it.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:28 AM
Most people in this country want to follow what the government and the media tell them. Also they don't want things to change, especially the republicans, so that they can feel secure even in what seems to be coming an orwellian 1984 state. The fear that is spun to convince the American people is staggering and they want us to ignore the collapse of our financial institutions to let the government figure it out.

This sounds to me like more government control as they seize these companies. It's scary to me to see things starting to collapse before our eyes and the fear spread across the country. As things get worse the government will take more control or our live in what they think is better for us. This includes the possibility of concentration camps that are being built right now. I've seen one in my home state in Indiana in the city of Beach Grove(look it up on

Something is building. If McCain gets to be president, he is a heartbeat away from dying and then we would have Palin as president. That to me is extreamly scary with how conservitive she is. Under her she could make Christianity the religion all Americans have to accept and a government who controls your every move. (There is a prophecy done by Jeane Dixon, who say the assassination of JFK, who said we would have a woman president. Granted not all her prophecies are correct, but there was another who made the same prediction.)

There is so much going on beyond what we know. Plots with in plots to take control and it's starting to snowball.

We might also see more collapse after September 30th, the end of the fiscal year, when foriegn contries we have borrowed money off of may want their money back. Our country would go bankrupt. That would further spin our economy into a downward spiral.

Also the fact that Russia is aligning themselves with other countries that are not happy with the US. It's crazy that we are witnessing the coming collapse of our finacial markets and our country. Does anyone else see this?

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:31 AM
How is Obama being "more honest" about it? McCain gives a more detailed, knowledgeable summary and outlines steps he plans to take.

All Obama does is to appeal to emotion and attack Bushco, which has become the solitary plank in his campaign.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:47 AM
reply to post by jsobecky
What difference does it make?

They are both rhetorical responses that are designed to increase voter support of either campaign.

However, to me, Obama's response provides more insight because he issues a roadmap that illustrates how CEO took advantage of weak consumer protections, oversight, and regulations. He gives citizens something to think about and research. McCain's response doesn't.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:10 AM
Ok here is an idea, imagine all the big banks fail or have to be bailed out by ´´the state´´, which in the endall are the poeple who live, work, pay the taxes via their paycheck,own houses and pay off mortages in that state.
Now the money we use is a promisory note that somebody will pay its face value,
who are those poeple who are going to stand up and pay the bearer the equivalent in gold or whatever? The Rockefellers ?? The treasury ???
No folks, we the poeple of that state are paying the equity !
So here is my idea, if money is in danger of failing because of a distrust in its paper value and poeple are loosing their homes because they cannot meet their debts, the solution would be let them keep their homes without further payment, this will immediatly stabilize the market and poeples budget.
Off course a certain % will loose a fortune but don´t forget less then 1%
of the population own something like 80%( I am not 1000% sure of that figure but it is a huge discrepancy in any case) of the worlds wealth and those folks are certainly not going to suffer much if they end up loosing some of their not so hard earned dough.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:33 AM
reply to post by Areal51

As far as I can tell, neither candidate has any real understanding of economics, and that's why they only address the issue lightly, with "roadmaps" and rhetoric. Do you really expect one of them to break it down a la Ron Paul? They are figureheads. Both of them support the continuance of the same failed economic model. Change? Not economically. So what is there for them to talk about?

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in