|
Quote:
|
Quote:
While the mortages may have been deceptive the people signing them bear responsibility and the politicians that forced FM and FM to cover the bad bets are fundementally to blame. |
Quote:
show that many mortages were criminally deceptive. And I'm sorry, if some of the best financial people in the world cant understand some of the investments instruments that Banks invented using mathematicians... We have a problem that is much deeper than poor people not knowing what they are doing. You have read about these... Yes? I would now like a post involving the huge wastes in Iraq and before made by private defense companies that have basically become government entities. Since the military creates so many jobs. Anytime lots of money goes into an area by way of government, there will be criminals lapping at the table. Could any rightwinger possibly post about the billions of dollars extracted from the govt. by defense contractors. |
Quote:
They intend for private investors to take over the responsibilities. Exactly as what God posted in that interview. Its almost the same thing. Take a listen. It will actually give you more fodder. |
Quote:
I'm sure he tells his class he invented fossils. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Are you serious? you make this statement "Anytime lots of money goes into an area by way of govt, there will be lots of criminals lapping at the table" Then you make a strange statement about money "extracted" by defense contractors. Let me address your first statement first. The Obama administration has just unleashed the greatest govt spending spree in history. Therefore according to your inane theory, the "criminals" must be "lapping" like ****in madmen. Statement number two. Who exactly is supposed to build military items? How much should an airplane or missile cost? You can watch basketball and simply have a bad opinion. On these topics you just throughout rhetoric and innuendo seemingly without much understanding. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
LaBron rocks and boxers are pussys...mmmmmmmm.....MMMMMMMMM????? :wf xxoo :o :confused: |
Quote:
Some parallels will bypass addicts that read only what fits their model. Govt spending on the whole is wasteful? Its just your waste is another persons food. The military spends money and creates jobs. Social programs do nothing but make dependents. I got it. But in both areas we can find many instances of incompetence and waste. You choose to emphasize a certain type of waste. Liberals another. And Obama has "unleashed (like Godzilla)" a spending "spree" (shopping for women's lingere). Just tossing dollars about randomly. No innuendo or opinion there. The largest. You got that right. As far as who is supposed to build military items... Apparently not INDEPEDENT private contractors. I guess government run contractors, might as well be. Its getting really hazy. But you might want a privatized military. |
Quote:
No. Not until the government organizes and gets out. Where have you found that Obama has said he plans to run the banks, and keep the banks in government control? Where? I have not found it yet... stop it with the silly stuff. You can call it Nationalizing or whatever. But the degree to which the govt. takes control, manages, and for how long are the real issues. Just say we should let the banks fail and watch the market. It will dive. But imo it will come back. Is there a middle ground? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Govt spending is generally wasteful by virtually ALL accounts. Remember there are 8500 earmarks we have not even delved into. How many of them wouldnt be considered wasteful except by the people that they benefit. Remember that unlike private business or individuals, the pols that direct the spending dont have much to gain by keeping the money. You want to compare military spending and social programs? That is fine with me. Lets see where to start. Military spending creates growth, benefits American businesses, provides good paying jobs, and provides tax revenue. Most social programs ****** growth, do zippo for American business, provide more govt mouths to feed, and eat up tax revenue. Are you attempting to minimize Obama's spending or say that it something other than frighteningly enormous? Just how many companies out there build tanks and attack fighters? It isnt fuzzy at all. People have complained about Hailburton except they always fail to point out that sometimes there is only one company that can do the job required. What then? |
Quote:
If the govt "nationalizes" banks, who exactly is going to run them? Please tell me this. Who will be in charge and who will they have to answer to? Let me ask another question. If the "nationalization" plan actually works out (which is almost an impossibility) why would the govt then give up control regardless of which party is in charge? Can you actually say with a straight face that Congress is going to give a successful bank back? Why would they? If it doesnt work (which is lke a 99.9% chance) then who exactly is going to want them especially with the draconian rules that will surely be drafted? What is Obama SUPPOSED to say? Yeah we are taking over the Banking business and probably going to keep it? Hell when Chris Dodd said it the market went into a freefall and his word is far less meaningful than Obama's. The market is falling regardless. The worry is what happens in the future if the govt gets into the banking business. You may want to call it rightwing paranoia but why wouldn't govt banks be just another cog in the giant political machine? Politics cost all of us. There is a reason that the Fed Reserve is supposed to be apolitical. |
Quote:
in this city thereby SAVING govt. money? THis type of blanket statement is just pure BS. Radar totally locked in. 2. Scares me to death... but so does having the flow of money grind to a halt. What will happen if we let these large banks fail? Nothing? There are tons of diff. opinions on what will happen immediately after they fall. 3. Fine. Then call a frggn spade a frggn spade. Haliburton is a Nationalized company? As are other defense contractors that build specialty items. And is it possible that they pull a little too much money from taxpayers? So they are the only ones... is it possible that they cheat,oh forget about it because they are the only ones that can build. Good for the economy my arse. They steal money from taxpayers just like people who dont belong on welfare. |
P: you're all f'd up on#3! This is the time-worn Democratic answer and rant about anything involving Cheney. Haliburton got the contracts primarily because they have total package when needing to get something done. Does Haliburton have cost over-runs like GM or Boeing,probably...but I don't hear the bitching about them like Haliburton. And if you think that company
is stealing, then you might as well paint 'em all with that brush! |
Quote:
It is my impression that festooning was not permitted here. |
Quote:
a. Put people in place within the system who they deemed worthy so that the bank could eventually be sold to Banks that remained solvent. Conflicts of interest were a problem, but it got these instituions OUT OF THE GOVTS HANDS... THis has actually been done before and it was not pretty. But might be prettier than letting them just dive. Can you say with certainty that if the banks fail, money will still flow? Because there are plenty of people that believe the banks should not be allowed to fail, not because of longterm problems, but because the fire is in the damn house now and we are not worried about the longterm health of the furniture! Which will be a problem to solve LATER. Do you seriously believe that Obama wants to KEEP THE BANKS IN THE GOVERNMENTS CONTROL? And if so how in the hell did you get this idea? Since he did not say it. YOu just feel it, as a good Republican? How the heck do you know he wants to do this because he has indicated he wants to get them reorganized and out of government control. |
Quote:
I just went with that. I was listening to C-span last night about some other companies and the dealings that went on between the congress and these companies. You dont hear bitching about GM? are you kidding? That fkkn company took govt money to be spent researching battery systems and used to for advertising their giant cars... Pardon my language. burp... |
the fdic insures deposits.
when a bank's assets (what is owed them) significantly exceed their liability (what they owe depositors), the fdic steps in and for all intents and purposes temporarily "nationalizes" the institution. it indemnifies what would otherwise be depositor loss's. the government has, since the last depression, stood behind the "private" banking system. indymac was "nationalized" last fall. lehman wasn't. do you ever wonder why an institution like citicorp with $1.75 trillion in supposed assets is currently valued by the market at around $10 billion? that's a troubling question for someone that believes in market economies. it suggests most people in the market think the institution is insolvent. they loaned a lot of money assuming housing would keep going up. they now hold assets that aren't worth what they owe their depositor's. same for b of a. and too many other financial institutions. on the upside, my favorite poster is back. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Perhaps we should start a betting pool on how long it takes for him to get grounded to the basement :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And let me ask you this question. Why wouldnt Obama want to keep the banks in govt control? Govt control is the standard behind which he governs as shown by his first 2 months on the job. Certainly his Congressional leaders such as Pelsoi and Dodd would LOVE to have this authority over those dirty capitalists. Do you honestly believe that they wouldnt rather make these banks puppets of the state? Let me ask again, What incentive is there to give up control of these institutions? Do I have to make a list of things Obama or any other politician has said that they either have done a 180 degree reversal on or were simply not true? His ACTIONS speak louder than his words. And his actions indicate that the banks would retain some degree of govt control were they to recover. |
Quote:
|
Saratoga is loaded with sour rich people.
|
Quote:
The military spends money on military bases. People lost unnecessary jobs... So military spending can be wasteful. I thought we agreed that a whole bunch of money thrown at any agency by the govt. will produce waste. There are a heck of a lot of good underpaid men and women that deserve more money that do some of the most difficult work of any US citizen. They risk their mental health, their family structure- it is a gigantic sacrifice. And there are a hell of a lot of wasteful paper pushers in the military. I know some of them. In the reserves especially. In general, as institutions get larger and complex, oversight gets more difficult and waste occurs. This is why I personally am so fond of small businesses (like you run). |
In a large frame of reference:
An entirely free market system does not exist in this country and never has. The government has always been involved in economic affairs varying in degree. At certain points in our history the economy has cratered and debates rage over the extent of government involvement in economic issues. A spectrum of beliefs reveal themselves. The extremes: RIGHT: Too much government involvement fostered, ignited, created an economic downturn and more government involvement will prolong, or even irreparably damage the economy. LEFT: The market in this country is unable to regulate itself and the government has a major responsibility to restore the economy through whatever means necessary. Massive government intervention is not only necessary, but a duty. Our country needs a much more socialistic flavor. If anyone wishes to push the extremes out further, please do. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And when they finally DO take over the failing banks then he will come out and say that he didnt want to do it but he HAD to. Ok I will start the list with a couple of simple ones. 1. I am not running for president (he did) 2. I will immediately withdraw the troops from Iraq (he didnt) 3. I will act in a bipartisan manner and reach across the aisle (he hasnt) 4. I will reverse the Bush administration's policies on executive power (he wont) 5 Earmarks (LOL) |
Quote:
|
The reality behind "cap and trade" and who is really hurts
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html |
Quote:
The great part about the demise of newspapers is that the WSJ is very well positioned and will survive as the liberal rags go down the drain. Truthfully the WSJ is far too complicated for most liberals. |
Quote:
a spectrum. I think it is a good summary. Primarily because I wrote it. |
Quote:
The first is silly. He is withdrawing the troops from Iraq and has given a timetable. I don't know where he ever said "immediately" - only that he would immediately address it. Which he did. He has in fact acted in a very bipartisan manner. I sure don't see how you can say this. So you have to throw out the first three. We will see on 4 & 5. He has already kept multiple campaign promises - shall we list those? |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
