Why are so many people who aren't even from New York...

[Danger Mouse]

so happy to tell us New Yorkers who would be best for our state, and who would best meet our needs?

[hlthe2b]

1. There are some Senate seats more influential than others...

NY and CA are just four of them.... For that reason, there is more national significance as to who holds those positions, even though it is their own state voters who decide. Double edged sword...

[karynnj]

25. No there isn't

Did Al D'Amato have more influence? Boxer does not have the influence of Leahy, from little (but exceptional) VT. Kennedy and Kerry both do as well - as does Levin of Michigan and Reid of NV.

[hlthe2b]

50. Kennedy and Kerry have tremendous seniority....

Their influence comes from that. Among junior Senators, it does matter what state they represent.... And if you think D'Amato did not get his share of pork through for NY, think again... Comparing Boxer and Leahy is confounded by Leahy's tremendous senority.

[karynnj]

54. D'Amato got his pork, but did he influence any major legislation?

I think that the amount of influence is based on seniority and the strength and quality of the Senator. Hillary Clinton is an anomaly because even before she entered the Senate, she was seen as a potential future President and she was married to the most powerful person in the Democratic party. In addition, she is said to be an exceptionally intelligent, talented person.

Even so, if you compare their first 8 years in the Senate, Kennedy and Kerry had more accomplishments. By then, Kerry had among other things led the investigation that exposed the US arming of the Contras (he was then excluded from the House/Senate Iran Contra hearings because of lack of seniority) and he had completed the BCCI investigation which was instrumental in Morgenthau's closing of OBL's bank. In addition, he had done most of the work on the POW/MIA committee, where he took on a task that was thought doomed and did an excellent job. Kennedy, who like HRC was helped by his name, had done major work on the Civil Rights legislation and medicare among other things.

Schumer is an aggressive, super smart man, who clearly works very hard, yet he has less influence than Durbin who has just 2 years more seniority. Of the Senators he came in with, the only other Democrat, Evan Bayh was the one pushed as possibly a future President - and he is from Indiana.

Boxer has more seniority than Durbin and Schumer - and while widely popular on DU is nowhere near as influential.

Also, both Daschle and Reid were far more influential than the NY and CA Senators - even though they were from small states.

[hlthe2b]

58. All good points, however...

If you look at MSM's treatment of freshmen Senators and Congressmen, in terms of their "face time," they tend to go with those from high profile states or the unique races (e.g., purple or recently blue states) like Webb of VA, for instance.... So while technically all states have two Senators and all is equal, after you adjust for seniority, I would argue that some states have an automatic higher profile, either because of their dense populations or because the media tends to build them up as such...NY has always been that way... I don't ever remember Alfonse D'Amoto having any time getting booked on the Sunday morning pundit shows, nor Schumer for that matter. Granted I agree that neither is/was effective from the standpoint of hallmark legislation (unlike their MA colleagues), but that is a different issue and question. Depends on how you define "influence" I guess. I just remember a work related issue that pitted my Federal Agency against the D'Amato pork machine and there was no damned doubt who was going to win out...Facts be damned... So from where I was standing, he was plenty influential and I can't imagine most Senators from smaller states railroading quite so effectively.

[Honeycombe8]

97. NY keeps telling us how important it is. In a way, that is true.

Everyone in the nation knows who the senators for NY are. No one in the country knows who the senators for Kansas are. That is because....NY senators represent many more people, it's harder to win an election in that state because of the money and connections required to do it, and the senators have a much higher profile in the senate than many of the other senatorial positions.

What happens in NY doesn't stay in NY.

That's why.

[MikeE]

2. LOL Now you have a taste of what it's like to live in DC

I totally understand.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

28. ^^^ good analogy

[cali]

3. oh, so now it's not acceptable for DUers to comment on anything

that happens in a state they don't live in? Interesting.

[Danger Mouse]

9. I never said that. What I did say was...

I get sick of people who don't know jack shit about New York saying 'OMG Caroline Kennedy would be such a great NY Senator!!' as if they know shit from shinola about it.
Giving an opinion is just that: giving an opinion. But state it as an opinion, because that's all it is. Don't make it sound like you somehow can see in your crystal ball the true answer, etc.
By 'you' I don't mean YOU specifically, Cali, just the people who seem to know everything about NY without ever having lived here.

[Trajan]

43. I think if someone is talking or typing ...

It is automatically assumed they are expressing an opinion ...

What other choice can there be ?

What ELSE are they expressing if not their opinion ? ... Cupcake recipes ?

Sheeesh ...

Two facts:

1) Cali is the LAST DUer on this planet to recommend Caroline Kennedy as the new junior Senator for NY State ...

2) Trajan's family is from Brooklyn, and as we possess that Brooklyn attitude (no matter where we are now), we AIN'T gonna sit back and let someone tell us we gotta shuddup ...

Ain't gonna happen ....

[uppityperson]

4. Everyone has at least 1 opinion on everything.

[Geek_Girl]

5. I live in TN so I like to live vicariously through the Northern States

Since my values and view point well never be reflected by my respresentation in Congress. :)

[mtnsnake]

6. Amen to that, Elrond

K&R

[babylonsister]

7. Heh. Try living in TX and the criticism that engenders. At least you're

only getting advice.

[Critters2]

8. Same reason so many non-Illinoisans know how we should deal with

our corrupt governor....or worse, are insisting he's being set up.

Apparently, they've solved all the problems in their states.

[Danger Mouse]

11. It's a conspiracy!!!

I know. Sigh.

[MikeE]

12. Cool, now that all the states' problems are solved...

what say we all meet at my place for brunch and work out this whole world peace thing. I'm so sick of pagent queens asking for it. :rofl:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grateful for Hope]

38. LOL!

excellent.

[Smarmie Doofus]

13. Don't senators work on national and foreign policy issues?

Don't they effect people nationally? Even globally?

[sandnsea]

14. Because there's only 100 senators

and they have so much power to affect all of us.

[marybourg]

15. And there are former N.Y.'ers living all over the country. n.t.

[DangerousRhythm]

39. *points to herself*

Like me. I only want the best for my home state. :'(

Seriously though, I think it's just that lots of people have an interest in New York, even if they've never stepped foot on its soil. :)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. we all do this.

[gristy]

17. Are you sure all the folks you are referring to are not from NY?

Do you think that their experiences in other states are not relevant? Why is being a resident of NY a requirement? Arghh... what are we talking about?

[bridgit]

18. California feels similarly as regards Austrian bodybuilders...

[dipsydoodle]

19. All I'd said previously

was that she had nice ankles. I didn't mention her boobs - honest.

[LittleBlue]

20. Funny, because when New Yorkers need a bailout

primarily benefiting New York banks, they turn to us non-NYers for the $$$.

Says something about NYers.

[Danger Mouse]

21. New York is more than just New York city, which a lot of ignorant fools seem to conveniently forget.

[LittleBlue]

23. I'm well aware of your geography

However, the majority of NY state's population is within the boroughs and metropolitan area.

[yourguide]

49. Again wrong.

The population of the state of NY:

19,297,729

The population of the city of NY (including boroughs)

8,274,527

So it appears to me that the majority of the population in the state of NY is outside of the 5 boroughs.

http://www.citypopulation.de/USA-NewYork.html

[LittleBlue]

59. Do you understand what a metropolitan area is?

I think I'm arguing with the uninformed here.

Go to Wikipedia and check the upstate population vs. the NY and NY suberbs- around 7 million upstate, the rest is in NY metro.

[yourguide]

63. I checked the census results. the US census results.

So why dont you respond to my other posts about more than half of the banks in washington state claiming or filing for bail out funds. Those of us in NY are really sick of bailing some of the jerks in washington state out.

[LittleBlue]

70. 1/2 the banks in Washington state =

I can't explain this any other way. If you lived in this state, you'd understand. Most of us aren't aware that there are so many banks in the state for good reason: those banks are 3-4 branch institutions, many of which are mom-and-pop type operations for the farmers in the east and southern part of the state. 80 may seem like a large number, but really the assets under their control are probably less than a tiny fraction of Citi's. The bailouts they receive will be a small fraction of Citi's.

I don't think I can state it any clearer than that.

I don't know what census you are posting, but if it's the "Upstate NY" thing, then here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstate_New_York

Approx 7 mil in upstate NY, the rest in NY metro (within NY). That leaves a clear majority in NY metro. For instance, Seattle has only 500k people but only when measuring from city limits drawn at the turn of the 19th century. It's metro is 3 mil. Same for NY city.

[yourguide]

72. And again, I am citing the US census

and you're citing wikipedia. :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

and just because the big banks arent in Washington state it doesnt mean your banks arent getting money.

[LittleBlue]

75. I never said my banks weren't getting money

That has never been the argument. I've said that the government has shown preference to NY banks with my money, while letting the largest Washington bank fail. That's all. And I know that most NYers had little to do with bank failures, but Wall St did.

Wikipedia has an excellent analysis, and I suggest you read it. NY's metro area is hard to distinguish due to megalopolis from NY to DC. But it does break that down, and your census bureau is only citing people within the city limits, which is invalid and intentionally misleading for the purposes of this discussion.

[yourguide]

81. You dont know anything about NY

If you are working off a 3 mile metro area then you have to disqualify 90% of long island and most of southern westchester. The far end of long island takes about 2 1/2 hours to manhattan on a no traffic day.

Montauk NY (the end of Long Island) is 117 miles away from the heart of manhattan. Not sure why you'd consider a wiki article more accurate than the census.

Do you not grasp that upstate NY is just that? Anything 3 miles or more outside of the city is not considered upstate NY. There is an area in the middle that's not called anything.

Sorry, massive fail.

[mtnsnake]

86. I live in New York and I can tell you that you are full of it up to your eyeballs

...and then some.

[yourguide]

87. So you consider Montauk a metro area of NY City?

117 miles away? Correction, 117.4 miles away. http://www.mapquest.com/maps?1z=10011&2c=Montauk&2s=NY

Perhaps you should look at what littleblue was referring to before picking a fight.


Or are you still acting out like and making threats like this lovely post of yours that was deleted?

[mtnsnake]

89. Do you?

Like I said, you are simply full of it up to your eyeballs. I took the time to read every post in this thread because I'm a NYer, and you simply do not know what you're talking about. BTW, I could care less about your childish screenshots. That just proves you're the most paranoid creature on earth to resort to something like taking a screenshot of someone's post and then posting it at some later date. lmao

[yourguide]

90. No, I dont.

Really, hmmmmm. So explain to me how I dont know what I am talking about.

I backed up all of my assertions with facts, stats, and proper sourcing. As usual you show up starting fights with nothing other than lip to back your statements up. Is white plains considered upstate? Is montauk considered NY metro? Is this bailout a NY bail out or is it a banking bail out?

No, mtnsnake. I took that screenshot so I could show a pattern of abusive posts towards me as you do nothing but seek me out and fight. Take your brawl back to caphill or where ever else you meander.

It's you who's in it up to your eyeballs and you've grown even more bitter and unpleasant since hillary lost.

[mtnsnake]

92. Not only are you completely full of it

but now I remember you after looking at your screenshot. It was YOU who initiated feeble lie after lie about me in a thread I was involved in, and on top of the attacks that YOU initiated toward me, you expected that I would let your lies about me go unanswered in that thread? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If I recall, you accused me of not being supportive of Obama when everyone but you knows that I supported Obama 100% the instant he beat Hillary in the Primaries. Lie about me and I've got the right to defend myself. I also have the right to call you on your bullshit.

BTW, using screenshots to resurrect posts that were deleted is highly against DU rules, but enjoy yourself with your little schemes.

[yourguide]

93. Right

so again explain to me how my assertions are wrong or is it just more of your lip to start a fight?

If you're just going to lip off to try and start a fight then stop stalking me and get lost.

Oh and show me where it is in the DU rules not to post a screenshot of a post. Will happily pull it down, but stalking is against the rules as well.

You live in far northern NY state, what 500+ miles away? How familiar are you with the city and what is considered the metro area?

[mtnsnake]

95. You're the last person

who should talk about stalking. For some reason YOU stalked ME non-stop one day when I had never even "met" you before. You followed me around that day from thread to thread, and I did my best to ignore your lame stalking until I finally had enough and responded to your idiocy. What was that, like a month ago or something when you stalked me like such an idiot?

That I ran into you in this thread today and called you on your incredible BS is just too bad, isn't it.

[yourguide]

96. Please again...

explain to me how I am incorrect, and actually debate.

Otherwise, and I think it's obvious, your grudge is showing.

Please, correct or debate my points or stop trying to pick a fight and get lost.

So funny, you consider it stalking when someone debates you in ONE THREAD and you're completely irrational when it comes to anyone criticizing the "goddess of peace". I consider it stalking when someone just spouts off trying to pick a fight based on nothing over and over again.

[mtnsnake]

98. You proved my point

Just by mentioning Hillary twice in this sub-thread when she has NOTHING to do with this, shows your true colors. You're making this about Hillary. You even lied about me again in the above post be telling me that I've become real bitter since Hillary lost the primaries. If that's the case, then how do you explain all the supportive threads that I started about Obama right from the very day he won the primary and all throughout the campaign...where I gushed over him and his flawless campaign over and over. If you'd like me to post proof of that, just speak up and I'll give you the links. In the meantime, it's just too bad for you that I think you're full of it up to your eyeballs in this thread about NY. Tough diddly squat for you that you can't handle it that someone doesn't agree with you about the state. Oh well, maybe you should grow a thicker skin if you're going to initiate attacks on people like what you did when you stalked me a month or so ago. Lighten up a little, too, while you're at it. This is a message board where people agree or disagree all the time. You don't need to lie to make a point.

[yourguide]

99. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha

I can take it when someone disagrees with me and has points and thoughts as to why they disagree. Debate is fantastic, but picking a fight because you live alone in far upstate NY just because you have nothing better to do and no point at all is a bit dull.

Apparently as you cant back up your disagreement then you're disagreeing just to be disagreeable. Meaning you're being insulting in an effort to pick a fight.

And your response just furthers my point that you've really spiraled downward since your primary loss. I never suggested in this thread that you havent supported the president elect, but that you are irrational when it comes to any criticism of Hillary as is evidenced by the number of locked posts you've flamed to death. Plain and simple.

Again, either debate the point at hand, the true discussion of this thread, or get lost and stop picking fights for the sake of fighting.

Oh and please tell me what I've lied about. This is the 2nd or 3rd time you've accused me of lying and when I call you on YOUR bullshit you cant seem to back that statement up either. Perhaps it's you who needs a thicker skin.

[mtnsnake]

100. So because I live in upstate NY I have no clue and nothing better to do

Wow, thank god there are very few of our fellow NY'ers who share such an elitist and snobby view as you do about anyone who lives more than 3 miles north of NYC. Good grief you have some serious issues. What a miserable life you must lead to harp of someone because they don't live in the city like you do. You are only here to get the last word, so it's not me who has nothing better to do. It's time you took a good look in the mirror. lol

[yourguide]

102. Again

what do you know about what is considered the NY metro area?

Littleblue essentially asserted that based on wikipedia, an area that is approximately a 120 mile radius is considered metropolitan NY, when by her own assertion the metro area should be 3 miles.

And, you live what 300 miles north? Not 3 miles, BIG difference. It would be the equivalent of me asserting superior knowledge of Plattsburgh just because I live in NY state and read a few articles about it. Just because I live in the state it doesnt mean I know shit about Albany, Buffalo, Rochester, Plattsburgh or anywhere outside of the NY city where I was born and have lived the majority of my life. Your defense reminds me a little of "I can see Alaska from my house".

But keep hurling insults. It's obvious you have no points to debate on so thats all you have left and you plan on flaming this thread until it's locked as well.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[mtnsnake]

103. FYI I was born in NYC

so you don't need to ask me any condescending questions like "what do you know about what is considered the NY metro area?". I was born in the city and then we moved north of there. Now I live in northern NYS. And your elitist attitude STINKS.

[yourguide]

104. When is the last time you lived in the NY metro area?

And your attitude of fighting for the sake of fighting with nothing to back it up is what stinks.

Simple question. Is a 120 mile radius outside of NY considered the NY Metropolitan area or is it an area closer to 5 or 10 miles?

Seems to me that you're the liar.

[mtnsnake]

111. So in addition to putting words into everyones mouth you have nose trouble too?

BTW, I love how you edit all your posts long after you've been busted in lame attempts to cover up your bullshit.

:rofl:

[yourguide]

112. Oh please, at least I correct my posts.

Start looking through the threads, some of your more abusive posts are being deleted. You may get the time out you deserve soon.

[mtnsnake]

114. Oh gee I am so worried about your threats that I might lose some sleep tonight (snicker)

You may get the time out you deserve soon

Hey, I appreciate you letting me know that I may be banned soon. That's very big of you.

[yourguide]

117. crusty old fool.

:eyes:

Sorry buddy, you're just a bully with no reason. And I'm quite sure it's not the first time you've been called one.

[mtnsnake]

118. bitter old dork.

and I'm quite sure it's not the first time you've been called one, nor will it be the last.

Lighten up, though. 'tis the season to be merry, not a bitter old grouch. :)

[yourguide]

119. I wouldnt know it by the way you've been behaving.

Picking a fight for no good reason other than to pick one.

While I was away I was making a vegetarian lasagna, homemade sauce, locally made fresh pasta and fresh mozzeralla, lots of fresh garlic, fresh basil, etc.

If you were starving on the street I would most certainly offer you some. However if you just dropped and werent in duress in I'd offer you a bowl of cheerios.

[mtnsnake]

120. Well I'm sorry to hear you wouldn't offer me your lasagna unless I was starving

because it sounds really good.

Picking a fight for no good reason other than to pick one

Well then why did you pick a fight with me in that other thread a month or so agao, the one which I've linked to below, for no good reason other than to pick one? :shrug: You weren't very nice to me there. I had certainly never attacked you before that time or even "met" you before, at least not that I'm aware of, yet you stormed into that thread and accused me of having anti-Obama bias, something that certainly was not true. You were up one side of me and down the other.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7871002&mesg_id=7871474

Anyway, your homemade veggie lasagna sounds tasty. I wish I had some.

[yourguide]

121. All right.

Then I'll let you have lasagna if you come over. :toast:

And you've picked fights with me long before that thread. You may not remember me but I remember you. :spank:

However, if we can both promise to be nice and call a truce I will PM you the recipe, it's delicious. I also use soy meatballs in the sauce so by the time the sauce has simmered for an hour they've crumbled and it's a bit like ground beef.

Deal? :hug:

[mtnsnake]

122. Deal

I don't remember doing so, but if I picked fights with you long before that thread, then I don't blame you for going after me in the other thread I linked to. My apologies.

Soy meatballs are a big plus for me because I've been trying to cut out most read meat. I love soy products, especially vanilla soy milk. That's nice of you to PM the recipe when you get a chance. It really does sound delicious.

Peace :toast: :hug:

[yourguide]

32. It's really hard for me not to use explitives in my response...

but bailing out the banking industry, regardless of what city the banking industry is located in, is not bailing out NY.

It does nothing for NY that it doesnt do for any of the other state governments and residents.

NY City is looking at all sorts of taxes on it's citizens to make up for it's shortfalls, NY City and state are not the ones being bailed out. The banking industry who holds the mortgage on your home in whichever crummy state you live is being bailed out.

I'm sorry, did I miss a memo? Do Amex, BofA, AIG, Wamu, etc only serve the citizens of the state of NY? If not, please have a giant steaming cup of STFU.

[LittleBlue]

41. WaMu is from my state, Washington

They were not bailed out, but auctioned off to JPMorgan, a NY bank. They just laid off all the former WaMu people in Seattle, hurting our economy.

I have to pay taxes to ensure that NY banks do not fail while the largest local bank goes under. Is that fair?

You are uninformed. BoA has not been bailed out. AIG is New York based. While it employs people in other states, the big money flows back to the HQ in NY, where all the large $$$ makers are located. I've got a problem with that- it makes things appear as if taxpayers are funneling money to NY to save NY from a problem generated almost solely by NYers.

[Trajan]

44. Utter nonsense ....

Banks based in NY and elsewhere do international business ....

I would be the LAST person to defend the behavior of modern banks or insurance holding companies, but it is a ridiculous notion to blame 'New York' because AIG or JP Morgan happens to have offices there ....

It is a laughable form of regional chauvinism ...

[LittleBlue]

45. You must know the difference between an office

and a corporate headquarters. Corporate HQs are filled with high wage earners. The profits of those banks flow disproportionately toward the top of a company's leadership.

So far I've seen only NY CEO's perpetrating high level fraud, getting bonuses, and avoiding prosecution as we bail out their current or former institutions.

[Trajan]

46. Irrelevent fact ....

The same thing happens in corporate 'offices' throughout the world ....

You assertion is bogus, and based on an apparent hatred of New Yorkers ...

[LittleBlue]

61. Did you overlook the fact that the vast majority of corporate offices

for US-based bank and banks held as foreign subsidiaries is HQ'd in NY?

Virtually all large investment banks are in NY. AIG is in NY.

The feds let WaMU go under but saved the majority of NY banks, even as a NY bank was laying off thousands of former WaMu personnel in Seattle. My tax money went to that scheme. Sorry, you are not arguing a valid issue.

The trading of credit derivatives such as MBS's and CDS's all occurred in NY city. The large bonuses at all major banks went to people in NY city. Again, sorry for the facts! That's not to taint all NYers who actually earn a living or are poor, but it is a fact.

[yourguide]

48. You should read more.

So then, explain to me again why wamu was the first to go under, before bail out funds were even being considered, if wamu ceos werent filled with high wage earners?

Again, this is a pervasive problem in the ENTIRE banking industry. Not just banks based out of NY.

[LittleBlue]

64. That's precisely my point!

You haven't been reading what I'm saying. I'm saying that those high wage earners and good jobs are crucial for local economies. My economy was hurt when the Feds selectively bailed out AIG before WaMU.

I take it you are not in business from the replies I'm getting. I'm a accountant who audits financial institutions. I'm telling you that I know where the majority of the money is flowing, I see it on corporate executive compensation audit programs consistently. I suggest you do more reading regarding this issue, or at least get some industry experience before calling me names.

[yourguide]

66. The fed bailed out AIG because it would have crashed the

WORLD economy. Not the NY economy.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jqOJ-T_kk6MkFRtZd_j3JLAhmlDg

"Analysts had warned that at an AIG collapse could trigger a wave of failures elsewhere. AIG is deeply involved with financial institutions around the world and it was feared that its demise would have disastrous global consequences."

And I take it you're in Washington state and not in the finance industry in NY because of your lack of knowledge or expertise.

More than half of Washington State's banks have filed for and most will be receiving bail out funds. Since this is a NY bail out, I dont want our bail out money used to bail out your banks or your state.

[LittleBlue]

68. I hate to tell you this, but any publicly traded security

will affect the world economy. I'm well aware of the arguments for bailing out AIG, and I agreed with the analysts. That's not my point! It is unfair that so many NY-based institutions were bailed out with my taxpayer dollars while we don't get the same consideration.

I'm in Washington state because I was born here and because my family is here. I do not fancy a move to NY, especially since my area of expertise is primarily software- IE auditing Microsoft.

Attacking me personally when we've just met is done in poor taste. You really should veer away from the ad hominem attacks.

[yourguide]

71. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

No wonder you dont have a clue, you're not even in banking. You're an auditor for Microsoft.

I don't recall any articles suggesting the collapse of Wamu would tumble the world economy, yet I saw many regarding AIG.

Wa state got the same consideration. More than 50% of the banks in your state are getting bailout money. Wamu was a victim of timing, and their own greed. I don't shed a single tear for wamu. If they werent greedy and didnt partake in the same loaning and trading practices they would have made it long enough to receive bail out funds. Wamu failed 2 weeks prior to the fed approving a bail out. Is it the feds fault they couldnt make it another 2 weeks?

[LittleBlue]

74. No, I'm an auditor at a worldwide accounting and consulting firm

We audit Microsoft, banks, and almost every other industry. Do you not understand what public accounting is? We essentially issue the financial statements and audit them.

You have too little knowledge and experience about these issues to argue them properly. WaMu was the largest bank failure at the time, and precipitated the collapse. During the crisis, no bank (or thrift, as WaMu was) nearly as large had collapsed. Look at the Dow Jones after its collapse on a chart.

The Fed did not approve of a bailout, yourguide; that was Congress. The Fed had already been making loans to banks prior to that. However, since WaMu is a thrift and not a bank, the Fed would not do it (but somehow it bent the rules for AIG, which is not a bank or even a financial institution at all).

[yourguide]

82. I would suggest an auditor

has too little knowledge and experience to grasp that bailing out banks across the country is not bailing out NY.

I just did some math based on the top 30 pay outs in the bail out. NY banks got 50% of the top 30 payouts.

And my apologies, congress, correct.

It bent the rules for AIG because it would have collapsed the world economy.

Just because you run some numbers on spreadsheets, it doesnt mean you understand how this bail out is a banking industry bail out and not a NY bailout.

[yourguide]

47. I would suggest it's you who's uninformed.

First, this entire bank problem was caused by sub prime loans, here's the list in order by state:

http://realestate.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=13107798

I'm sorry, it appears to me that banks are being bailed out that made loans to folks in Washington state. As you have a higher foreclosure rate than NY state does it would appear based on your theory we are being bailed out because of Washington states high foreclosure rates amongst another 24 states that have a higher foreclosure rate than we do.

And if the only NY banks caused this problem how do you explain WAMU going under since they are a Washington State bank? Could it be because they wrote too many sub prime loans or was there a conspiracy amoungst NY banks to see wamu go under? :sarcasm: WAMU was merely a victim of timing, nothing more, they were the first to show signs of problems and the government hadnt put a bail out plan together yet.

And on top of that, perhaps you should read a bit more. It appears a TON of Washington state banks are receiving or seeking bail out funds:

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/11/10/story8.html?b=1226293200^1729492

To save you the trouble of reading, because apparently you don't:

"More than half of Washington’s 82 banks likely will apply and most will qualify, said Brad Williamson, director of the state Department of Financial Institutions (DFI), which regulates state-chartered banks."

And by the way, BofA took bail out money as well:

Bank of America received $15 billion, while Merrill Lynch got $10 billion.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/11/news/companies/BofA/?postversion=2008121118


And if you dont think losing all of these banks, banking jobs, etc is hurting our economy, more so than yours I can assure you then I hope and pray every single damn bank in NY, the NYSE, and the NASDAQ all move to Seattle. It would be great for NY. We wouldnt have to deal with the daily concerns of terrorist attacks anymore, there'd be plenty of affordable housing and the rest of us could be bitching whining and complaining about how we have to bail the state of Washington out. The state of Washington couldnt bear the weight of all the job losses in NY right now based on your population alone.

So AGAIN I say, STFU. NY state isnt being bailed out. The entire damn banking industry, including your miserable state banks are being bailed out.

[LittleBlue]

67. Those banks you cited are tiny

Those banks together do not equal a tiny fraction of Citi's assets.

The TARP funds BOA received were not for itself (which is well capitalized), but for its subsidiary Countrywide. Just like Merrill.

Again, NY received 90% of the TARP and Fed bailouts. The man who caused the debt bubble is Alan Greenspan, another New Yorker. The decisions being made at the Fed (a proxy for the banksters in NY) were primarily for the benefit of NY banks. The Fed itself has been captured by the banks!

[yourguide]

69. Doesnt change that your banks are not being bailed out.

And you are full of crap. BofA took tarp funds, Merril took tarp funds. Your assertion that BofA didnt is bullshit.

Seriously, you are as foolish as George Bush and dont belong on this board. You are correlating geography with a bail out instead of an industry. Kind of like the way Bush correlated Iraq with AL Quada.

More than HALF of Washington states banks are taking TARP funds. If this was an NY bail out you or banks in the other 49 states would be receiving a penny.

Please back up your assertion that 90% of the funds went to NY Banks, link, article, or are you just talking out of your ass again?

Sorry you hate NY, I suspect you failed here which is why you hate it so much.

All of these banks loan money to your state in one way or another. Your state is being bailed out as well.

[LittleBlue]

73. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

BofA itself took over troubled institutions like Merrill and Countrywide as subsidiaries, as they are still operated. Merrill is a NY bank recently bought by BofA partially at the behest of the Fed.

Refer to my other statement above on Washington state banks.

"The banks agreeing to receive equity investments from the Treasury include Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. (including Merrill Lynch), Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., Bank of New York Mellon and State Street Corp.<11><12><13> The Bank of New York Mellon is to serve as master custodian overseeing the fund.<14>"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Assets_Relief_Program#cite_note-WSJ-Solomon-2008-10-14-10

Considering Merrill is a NY bank before it went tits up, and BofA took it for Countrywide (either way it's non-NY), let's take a look:

$10 billion for non NY BofA
Wells took about $25 billion
Those two are considered not troubled and received very little.
The rest you see up there are are NY banks that are heavily troubled (except perhaps Goldman), plus AIG (which received over 100 billion between TARP and the Fed) Between the Fed bailout (of over 2 trillion) and the TARP bailout (700 billion), those NY banks received the largest share. I daresay it could not be less than 80%, conservatively. Excluding the other heavily troubled banks like Citi, just the AIG loan vs. Wells and BofA makes it a 70% NY thing.

Sorry!

[yourguide]

79. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha

Jesus, please again do your homework before talking out your ass.

http://www.propublica.org/feature/bailout-bucks-to-banks-1028


Of the top 30 institutions given TARP funds, the NYC institutions account for 50% of the money given out. The other half has been spread to institutions outside of NYC. Assume if you total up past the top 30 most of those are not NY banks and we get closer to 40/45%

For a more detailed look go here. Wells fargo is SF based, not NY based.

http://www.ustreas.gov/initiatives/eesa/docs/TransactionReport-11252008.pdf

Sorry, you dont even get anywhere near 80%.

Again, STFU and get your NYC hate out of here. Oh and stop using wiki as a source, properly source your nonsense.

[yourguide]

85. And based on the US treaury's own report here:

http://www.ustreas.gov/initiatives/eesa/docs/TransactionReport-11252008.pdf

A total of 161,471,163,000 has been distributed.

Whats been distributed to NY banks, including Merril?

83,000,000,000

BofA stays right in the column it was in aside from Merril, countrywide was based out of Calabasas, CA. Wells Fargo is based out of SF.

Thats 51% before all the smaller banks in states like yours grab their share which will knock it well under 50% which compared to the link here:

http://www.propublica.org/feature/bailout-bucks-to-banks-1028


It's completely in line with my figures. Neither seem to match yours. Sorry, fail.

[LittleBlue]

105. Those are TARP funds

Include the $2+ trillion the Federal Reserve loaned to Citi, Goldman, and AIG, which is not appropriated by congress and is not on the list. AIG isn't even on that list and they received over 100 billion.

[yourguide]

108. you might want to look again. AIG is on that list

as is goldman and citi.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NashVegas]

51. That's So Beyond NY

Take a look at this guy's resumé: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Rhodes

We didn't bail out NY, we bailed out the fucking WTO.

[LittleBlue]

77. We bailed out both, unfortunately.

The three are nearly indivisible- banks, NY city, and the WTO. Globalism is HQ'd in NYC. Finance is HQ'd in NYC.

[yourguide]

83. Then why has more than 50% of the TARP funds gone to

institutions outside of NYC?

[LittleBlue]

107. Read above

You are not including Federal Reserve bailouts.

[yourguide]

109. Only a fraction of the fed money has been distributed.

On top of that the fed distributed no funds to citi. Only tarp funds were distributed so far, I did the numbers based on both the us treasury's own numbers as well as from the watchdog numbers.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

62. we didnt get a bail out the banks did. surely, you know that.

[LittleBlue]

76. Yes, I specified that above. nt

[H2O Man]

22. I'm from NY.

While she wasn't the person I'd have selected, I think that Caroline Kennedy would make an outstanding Senator. If she accepts the offer, and runs in 2010, I'll support her, 100%.

I notice quite a few of the non-NY residents posting anti-CK things. It seems to be as common as those who post pro-CK things. (I've yet to see an "OMG! post on the topic.) I am not offended in the slightest. This isn't the NYS forum.

[CarbonDate]

24. Um, same reason people from overseas....

...like to tell us which President they'd like us to vote for?

[AllentownJake]

26. Well every four years NYers come to PA

and help us determine who will be President. I'm just returning the favor :-)

BTW a whole bunch of NYers came to PA for the primary on both sides so....

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

27. I don't know lround

To me the best part about New York is forgetting it. But you might try explaining to them ,all of those out theres somewhere ,what that particular seat is for, or do you know ?

[HockeyMom]

29. I am living in Florida for the time being

But my heart is still in NY as you can see from my avatar. As far as the next Senator, and yes, I did vote for Hillary, as long as he/she is a Democrat that is really all that matters.

Actually, I care more about what happens in NY than what happens in Florida.

[JI7]

30. Senators vote on matters that will affect people in all states, that's why people know more

about Senators from outside their state than Governors outside their state.

[BlooInBloo]

31. C'mon. Pretty much every opinion in the world is made by people who are less than perfectly situated

to make that opinion.

Yes, even New Yorkers do it. Just as much as everybody else.

[Waiting For Everyman]

33. Senators aren't about local legislation.

What are you worried about opinions for? Only NYers can vote on it anyway.

[SwampG8r]

34. i wonder the same thing here in florida

about new yorkers
they are always glad to tell you how they do it back home and how its better

[EFerrari]

35. Because this is not the New York forum.

[Onlooker]

36. Because we care about you n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

37. I was kind of wondering the same thing

and, I have been tempted to say "Mind your own business".

But, take heart, Elrond, it is up to our Governor who will, initially, fill the Senate seat, and then it will be up to US in 2010.

All the hot air I see here is truly hot air and will not influence what will happen as far as this vacant senate seat is concerned.

[MadHound]

40. Because it's politics, America's national pastime, much more popular than any ball game

And thus any major, and even minor political question is beaten to death, no matter who's state it is. C'mon, how many threads have we had about California, Texas, Florida, etc. politics. Hell, we just got done chewing on Alaska, just started in on Illinois, now it's your turn.

This has been going on forever, don't take it personal.

[last_texas_dem]

42. Should no one express opinions about any senators or governors

except those of their own states, or express any opinions about representatives except the one from their district? It'd make for a pretty boring political discussion board, wouldn't you say?

[NashVegas]

52. You Never Really Know, Do You

Lots of people are FROM New York. Specifically, lots of college educated people are FROM upstate NY, if you catch my drift.

[Chiefofland]

53. NY'ers seem to want Kennedy for the job

Polls put her ahead of Cuomo. At least the polls I've seen so far.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

55. Because the US Senate affects everyone? nt

[otohara]

116. Bingo

We are not the blue states, or the red states, we are the United States of America.

And last I checked, candidates from any state can get and solicit money from any citizen in the other 49 states.

[saltpoint]

56. Because we're comprehensively superior in all respects.

Feel free to consult us on politics, economics, urban issues, the environment, relationship problems, and tasty holiday recipes.

We stand ready to serve.

[saltpoint]

57. And for the best burritos, I would go with Benny's in the Village.

http://www.urbanspoon.com/r/3/22162/restaurant/East-Village/Bennys-Burritos-New-York

Generous portions, utilitarian layout, comfortable-but-not-full-of-itself decoration, and surprisingly pleasant on a cold winter's night.

[nichomachus]

60. Because that seat is pretty much a carpet-bagger seat and

New Yorkers don't seem to mind.

[The Backlash Cometh]

65. Because Wall Street rules the world. Or did. Your city taketh the money,

so, we are invested in what happens in government.

[backwoodsbob]

78. why are so many people not from the south

so willing to tell us what to do and how to live?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

80. because it effects us all? which is why i think non-new yorkers weighing in on ny politics

is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged. the policies that come out of dc affect us all. to a degree this is true for the world at large and why so many foreigners seemed so invested in obama.

[Jim Lane]

84. As a New Yorker, I don't mind at all

This is a forum for discussing politics. Heck, there've been recent threads in which Americans were popping off about Canadian politics. Most Americans, even non-New Yorkers, will be more affected by Paterson's choice for the Senate seat than by whether Harper's government stands or falls.

[AtomicKitten]

88. that's a passive-aggressive way of saying you don't support Caroline K's appt to the NY Senate seat

and trying to stifle discussion of that bit of politics on a political discussion board is ridiculous

[question everything]

91. Did it bother you when so many non-New Yorkers criticized Hillary's effectiveness

as a Senator?

What about people not from CT intervening in the CT Democratic primaries?

And so many who are not from Minnesota who donated so much money to the Democrat running against Michele Bachmann?

[IndianaGreen]

94. Hillary was not from New York

yet you guys took her in as you did Bobby Kennedy.

I don't give a rat's ass who is the next Senator from NY. I only care about how the NY legislature is going to act on LGBT rights.

[Stephanie]

106. No kidding

I am with you, and I also look forward to having a Senator who is actually a New Yorker, for a change.

[Lord Helmet]

110. that's really lame since this is a discussion board

[grantcart]

113. because if we can pick a Senator there we can pick a Senator anywhere.

[saltpoint]

124. It's up to us, DU, DU.

grantcart, I'm sorry I missed your great line the first time. I was asleep at the switch.

I got it on second try, though.

Terrific. Thank you.

[TankLV]

115. Because it's a nice "hobby"?!

It's an open discussion board.

I used to live there - I was born there.

New York is a fascinating place.

New York is a famous place.

New York is the place everybody else aspires to be.

New York affects the rest of us disproportionately to it's size, and/or because of it's size...

We all "love" New York and want what's best.

Never told this was a "private" discussion topic - sorry if it was...who knew...you should let the rest of us know beforehand...

I could go on...

[saltpoint]

123. Gov. Paterson is said to be approaching a decision.

And is likely to announce it upon confirmation of Senator Clinton to her new position.

[autorank]

125. I :heart: New York

In fact, when I moved to NYC way back, I remember this line ... "New York is a fun city." What an understatement;)

All I have to say to the residents of my former home is this - you're terrific!