Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Wall Street..

Wall Street is spending $500 million to convince Congress to kill the reform bill that will finally curb their reckless behavior.1

That's one investment that's paying off. Every single Republican is now on record opposing Wall Street reform.

That means every single Republican is on record protecting the big banks instead of the countless Americans who lost jobs, money, houses, or their pensions because of Wall Street's behavior.

Why?

 
Anonymous

Asked by Anonymous at 7:57 AM on Apr. 21, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

This question is closed.
Answers (13)
  • .........if anyone had kept their shares when the market plummeted and continued to BUY they would find they had almost 30% of their original balance back and made money on new investments to offset what they had lost. Nobody lost any money until they sold...and if they had read their prospectus in the beginning then they should have known to not sell.


    Agreed. This is pretty basic information. If an individual has a sizable portfolio, I tend to doubt that they'd lack this knowledge. In addition, financial advisersare readily available. Further, you have to consider those who had just retired when the crash hit- For some of those folks, their options were likely much more limited.

    Sisteract

    Answer by Sisteract at 11:26 AM on Apr. 21, 2010

  • They didn't lose jobs because of Wall Streets behavior. They lost them because of Governments behavior.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 8:05 AM on Apr. 21, 2010

  • I'm a Republican and I'm not against financial reform. Actually, I approve and support Obama's decision to institute reform of derivatives markets. Most people have no comprehension of how and why that operates and how and why what happened. Derivatives were almost created by Joe Kennedy Sr in the early 1920's, and he-according to some-was single handedly responsible for the '29 crash. Hedging and Derivatives need to be curtailed and regulated or this type of thing will happen each and every time a few brilliant money managers decide to let a few in on the scheme and make billions. There was so much hedging going on in the last 10 years nobody knew who owed them money and who they were supposed to be paying at dividend time. Derivatives have to be regulated JMHO
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 8:14 AM on Apr. 21, 2010

  • And to add.........if anyone had kept their shares when the market plummeted and continued to BUY they would find they had almost 30% of their original balance back and made money on new investments to offset what they had lost. Nobody lost any money until they sold...and if they had read their prospectus in the beginning then they should have known to not sell. So saying they lost their pensions because of wall street is really misleading they only lost on paper temporarily and permanently when they sold. The ones who didn't sell are currently profiting. Looking at performances last night some International funds are showing 50% + increases and conservative ML funds are showing almost 9%---I don't know about you but it all looked pretty good to me for the last year.

    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 8:20 AM on Apr. 21, 2010

  • ANON I won't go as far as to say you are lying but you are incorrect. EVERY Republican is not against reform. They are working with the Democrats to get a GOOD bill which is something the Dems don't seem to care about as long as they get the control they want.
    Also since your post has overtones that say Republicans don't want reform because they get money from Wallstreet and big banks, you might want to know that 62% of money given from these businesses is given to DEMOCRATS
    itsmesteph11

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 9:41 AM on Apr. 21, 2010

  • Thank you jewjewbee! Excellent answers!!!

    I don't suppose it occurred to the OP that most of the people that really LOST their pensions lost them because the government took over so many companies, stole the shares and gave them away to special interest groups like the UAW.

    Republicans do want some financial reform..just like they wanted some healthcare reform. That doesn't mean we should accept whatever reform is offered and them whoop and holler about "doing' something. Just take a look at what happened with Credit Card reform. Many people are paying more than ever, responsible people saw their credit limits cut and fees have gone through the roof....but whoop whoop and holler...they "did" something.
    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 11:23 AM on Apr. 21, 2010

  • jewjewbee, I am worried about the derivative market. I was reading that there is more than 600 trillion dollars involved and some of them have started to fail...this could be much much bigger than the housing collapse. I haven't had time to do any real research into it..I would be interested in more of what you know. Could you maybe tell the gang what you know!?
    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 11:25 AM on Apr. 21, 2010

  • I'd have to actually read the bill, or understand it better to comment more...

    But why do people act like if a conservative votes against a bill they must be against the subject of the bill? Do they not understand that conservatives believe in the government staying out of the economy and private business and that legislating everything under the sun is not a good idea?

    Again, I'd have to understand the bill better, but I was just commenting in general (for healthcare, etc...)
    LeanneC

    Answer by LeanneC at 11:46 AM on Apr. 21, 2010

  • YSK, sure Lemmee find some website links on derivatives and what's coming. Actually CNN just did a really good piece two nights ago maybe John King, he had 3 female guests and they were all brilliant and offered very good insight.


     

    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 12:16 PM on Apr. 21, 2010

  • Further, you have to consider those who had just retired when the crash hit- For some of those folks, their options were likely much more limited.
    ---------------------------
    Not really, if they had a good advisor they would have been advised more than 15 years ago ( age 50) to go to cash equivalents and conservative funds. Thus leaving less risk and a larger balance. Even if they did retire the same year as the big losses, they would not have taken out a lump sum, rather continue taking monthly payouts or yearly payouts and leaving the balance behind to continue to earn dividends. As long as nobody sold when they panicked, even when retired, the money as of yesterday's big board should for the most part still be there.
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 12:19 PM on Apr. 21, 2010

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN