But there is. You don't need to look so hard for it out there in the words and opinions of others. Just open your heart to it and it will appear from the shadows where it's kept waiting for you...
Of course you're right and I know this. But fucking A. This stuff is shameful.
And there is no decency left in this nation at all.
But there is. You don't need to look so hard for it out there in the words and opinions of others. Just open your heart to it and it will appear from the shadows where it's kept waiting for you...
They are both subsidiaries of Moody's Corporation or am I missing something important ? Right hand, left hand of the same organization.
Fail.
If that's all you got in terms of digging into facts, then you're the one who's failing. You're not even bothering to back up your assertion about Obama's stimulus.
Please: if you don't think that Zandi and Blinder can be trusted, provide us with links to credible and substantive economic analyses claiming that Obama's stimulus didn't work. Or serious critiques of Zandi and Blinder's paper. Or evidence that Moody's Analytics' work in general can't be trusted—although such evidence wouldn't speak to Blinder's academic and professional career and his reputation amongst economists .
Moody's Analytics is a subsidiary of Moody's Corporation established in 2007 to focus on non-rating activities, separate from Moody's Investors Service. It provides economic research regarding risk, performance and financial modeling, as well as consulting, training and software services.
Moody's Investors Service, often referred to as Moody's, is the bond credit rating business of Moody's Corporation, representing the company's traditional line of business and its historical name. Moody's Investors Service provides international financial research onbonds issued by commercial and government entities and, with Standard & Poor's and Fitch Group, is considered one of the Big Three credit rating agencies.
You are kidding right ?
They are both subsidiaries of Moody's Corporation or am I missing something important ? Right hand, left hand of the same organization. Do you really believe that one sub of a company is going to indict the other? I want some of what you're smoking.
Moody’s, a division of Moody’s Corp., and S&P, a unit of McGraw Hill Financial Inc., gave triple-A ratings to those mortgage deals, making it possible for even conservative investors to buy securities backed by subprime loans that later turned out to be risky. When the housing market collapsed, losses on those bonds spread everywhere and deepened the crisis, costing investors billions of dollars. ... Based in New York, and the world’s second-biggest ratings firm behind S&P, Moody’s was a major issuer of triple-A ratings on residential mortgage-backed securities before the crisis. ...
Moody’s had “inadequate models and methodology” to gauge the risk of subprime mortgages and exhibited a “relentless drive” to win market share, said Phil Angelides, the former California state treasurer who led the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which included a case study of Moody’s in its 2011 report.
“What we found at Moody’s was very similar to the practices and conduct at Standard & Poor’s. The conduct and results were the same,” said Mr. Angelides. The 10-member commission concluded that credit-rating firms were “essential cogs in the wheel of financial destruction.”
You do know that Moody's Analytics and Moody's Investors Service are separate businesses with separate functions, don't you?
You'd be better off finding credible and substantive economic analyses that claim Obama's economic stimulus didn't do any good. Good luck with that.
Moody's Analytics is a subsidiary of Moody's Corporation established in 2007 to focus on non-rating activities, separate from Moody's Investors Service. It provides economic research regarding risk, performance and financial modeling, as well as consulting, training and software services.
Moody's Investors Service, often referred to as Moody's, is the bond credit rating business of Moody's Corporation, representing the company's traditional line of business and its historical name. Moody's Investors Service provides international financial research onbonds issued by commercial and government entities and, with Standard & Poor's and Fitch Group, is considered one of the Big Three credit rating agencies.
In this paper, we use the Moody’s Analytics model of the U.S. economy—adjusted to accommodate some recent financial-market policies—to simulate the macroeconomic effects of the government’s total policy response. We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.
Moody’s, a division of Moody’s Corp., and S&P, a unit of McGraw Hill Financial Inc., gave triple-A ratings to those mortgage deals, making it possible for even conservative investors to buy securities backed by subprime loans that later turned out to be risky. When the housing market collapsed, losses on those bonds spread everywhere and deepened the crisis, costing investors billions of dollars. ... Based in New York, and the world’s second-biggest ratings firm behind S&P, Moody’s was a major issuer of triple-A ratings on residential mortgage-backed securities before the crisis. ...
Moody’s had “inadequate models and methodology” to gauge the risk of subprime mortgages and exhibited a “relentless drive” to win market share, said Phil Angelides, the former California state treasurer who led the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which included a case study of Moody’s in its 2011 report.
“What we found at Moody’s was very similar to the practices and conduct at Standard & Poor’s. The conduct and results were the same,” said Mr. Angelides. The 10-member commission concluded that credit-rating firms were “essential cogs in the wheel of financial destruction.”
Of all the personal confrontations that Trump has been involved in during his campaign, and there are plenty,
how many did he start or take the first swing ?
Irrelevant question.
This guy wants to be President. A President shouldn't get involved with personal confrontations on a numbingly regular basis, often with little or no provocation.
Right now Trump is destroying his candidacy by still—STILL—fighting with the Khans and getting into confrontations with Paul Ryan and John McCain. Republican candidates are quietly planning on trying to ignore Trump during their own campaigns. Even if he does get elected, he will have NO allies in Washington.
Let's put aside questions on morality or standards of behavior. Based only on a pragmatic, cold-eyed view of the campaign, Trump should disengage from fighting with the Khans, if only to stop damaging his popularity and alliances.
But he is doubling down. Trump's behavior is ugly as a political spectacle. As a public display by a national figure, it's deeply disturbing. I am convinced that Trump is seriously mentally ill.
Really ? $800 billion later and this is what we get ?
Congrats on re-running the cheap and easy criticism. Republicans love to play this clip, apparently to claim that Obama, his economic advisors and Congress didn't know what they were doing.
The Great Recession and the rapid response to it (by Bush's Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson as well as Obama's staff) were almost unprecedented. There was almost no time to act to avert disaster. There was no history of a rapidly needed, massive stimulus to guide Bush or Obama.
We then planned to meet at 5 p.m. that day, and I invited Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to join us. Later that evening, the meeting commenced, with Democratic and Republican leaders from both the House and Senate.
Secretary Paulson described a meltdown and financial crisis from the depths of hell.
When I asked Bernanke what he thought of the secretary's characterization, he said, "If we do not act immediately, we will not have an economy by Monday." This was Thursday night. Everyone in the room was flabbergasted.
...
On Saturday, Secretary Paulson sent us a three-page draft proposal with a price tag of$700 billion. Again, we were flabbergasted — this time, by the staggering amount and the fact that all authority would be placed in the secretary's hands. Democrats insisted that the final legislation include greater accountability and oversight.
You can play that clip of Obama's rueful joke as much as you want, but the stimulus and accompanying financial market policies such as TARP and the Fed's quantitative easing programs worked.
Here is a summary of a paper, with my boldfacing of relevant sections, by Alan S. Blinder (highly respected Princeton University economist) and Mark Zandi (principal analyst at Moody's Financial Analytics and McCain's economic advisor during the 2008 campaign):
The U.S. government’s response to the financial crisis and ensuing Great Recession included some of the most aggressive fiscal and monetary policies in history. The response was multifaceted and bipartisan, involving the Federal Reserve, Congress, and two administrations. Yet almost every one of these policy initiatives remain controversial to this day, with critics calling them misguided, ineffective or both. The debate over these policies is crucial because, with the economy still weak, more government support may be needed, as seen recently in both the extension of unemployment benefits and the Fed’s consideration of further easing.
In this paper, we use the Moody’s Analytics model of the U.S. economy—adjusted to accommodate some recent financial-market policies—to simulate the macroeconomic effects of the government’s total policy response. We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.
When we divide these effects into two components—one attributable to the fiscal stimulus and the other attributable to financial-market policies such as the TARP, the bank stress tests and the Fed’s quantitative easing—we estimate that the latter was substantially more powerful than the former. Nonetheless, the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 1½ percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls. These estimates of the fiscal impact are broadly consistent with those made by the CBO and the Obama administration. To our knowledge, however, our comprehensive estimates of the effects of the financial-market policies are the first of their kind. We welcome other efforts to estimate these effects.
One article I read—WashPo or Politico.com—quoted anonymous sources within Trump's campaign who claimed that Trump planned on blaming the RNC for insufficient support and donation-gathering if Trump lost.
He will definitely find someone to blame. His fragile ego won't allow anything else.
Of that there is no doubt. The only real question is whose political careers will be permanently damaged from Trump's "stink" when this all ends.
One article I read—WashPo or Politico.com—quoted anonymous sources within Trump's campaign who claimed that Trump planned on blaming the RNC for insufficient support and donation-gathering if Trump lost.
He will definitely find someone to blame. His fragile ego won't allow anything else.
I'll give you that, to be sure, on this one item. I need to see him put new tools in his tool box. If he does, great, he show how he learns from mistakes. If he doesn't, then I dunno what to say.
To Rod: I really think he's in it to win it and was from the beginning. With all his bluster, its hard to see him wanting to end his life as a loser and a joke for the next century like Dewey. And I'll disagree with the thought that Trump (or is it anyone ?) should be afraid of becoming our POTUS. Unless, as you say, that he only did it as a stunt. Then yes, he better be afraid.
It's clear to the world that his "toolbox" is empty... save for the same rusty hammer he pulls out in repeated attempts to beat people who he feels have "crossed" him.
New tools? Sorry, if he hasn't used them yet it just means he doesn't have them (period) and the POTUS isn't a learn-as-you go position.
No, the shocking thing was that he had no tools in his toolbox to handle the situation.
I'll give you that, to be sure, on this one item. I need to see him put new tools in his tool box. If he does, great, he show how he learns from mistakes. If he doesn't, then I dunno what to say.
To Rod: I really think he's in it to win it and was from the beginning. With all his bluster, its hard to see him wanting to end his life as a loser and a joke for the next century like Dewey. And I'll disagree with the thought that Trump (or is it anyone ?) should be afraid of becoming our POTUS. Unless, as you say, that he only did it as a stunt. Then yes, he better be afraid.
