|
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 04:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.