Dear Right...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Based on what I have read,
this is just not true.

The mortages that were written up
where shameful. And then the way
they were hidden amongst other good
loans was criminal.

This is the major reason it is so difficult
to ascertain the value of a mortage "packages"
sold as investments. Toxic mixed with clean.
And one of the reasons Bush/Volcker
failed in righting the ship.

You have read incorrect information.

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.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You have read incorrect information.

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.

There are plenty of court cases as we speak that will
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.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Not really. While the Feds may need control of the bank as it is dismantled, nationalizing banks under the current plan is attempting to right the ship instead of scuttling it.

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.

[DeltaBlues]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Phil is tossing around flawed info like yesterdays chicken soup....again.



I'm sure he tells his class he invented fossils.

Originally Posted by DeltaBlues

Phil is tossing around flawed info like yesterdays chicken soup....again.

Artychoke would know.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

There are plenty of court cases as we speak that will
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.

You are talking about two distinct, separate issues

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

There is pretty much zero chance that this will actually happen. Govt NEVER truly relinquishes authority and hardly anyone qualified wants to even serve in the Treasury dept much less manage these debacles for peanuts.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I saw that episode

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

My first order of business as president would be to try and pass a plan for universal blowjobs and topless massages for all Americans.

If you're daughter is a junior +/- 18 in high school and she's having trouble paying for her college education ... my admin will help her and stuff.

ftfy

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

For peegarden

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by DeltaBlues

Phil is tossing around flawed info like yesterdays chicken soup....again.



I'm sure he tells his class he invented fossils.

Jhonny Peharlta is a god..mm..mmmm.......???????
LaBron rocks and boxers are pussys...mmmmmmmm.....MMMMMMMMM?????



















xxoo

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You are talking about two distinct, separate issues

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.

I am sure the issues are distinct for you.
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.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

For peegarden

Why has the stock market fallen so much as politicians have talked about nationalizing the banks? If this was such a wonderful way of fixing credit markets, wouldn’t you think that stocks would go up?

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?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You can watch basketball and simply have a bad opinion.

Ouch kabibbles...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I am sure the issues are distinct for you.
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.

Stop your whining. How exactly do i know what fits my "model" before I read it? Just another attempt at discrediting the source rather than the issue.

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?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Why has the stock market fallen so much as politicians have talked about nationalizing the banks? If this was such a wonderful way of fixing credit markets, wouldn’t you think that stocks would go up?

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?

Let me explain this because you seem to have a problem forming independent thoughts.

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.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Stop your whining. How exactly do i know what fits my "model" before I read it? Just another attempt at discrediting the source rather than the issue.

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.
1. 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.

2. Are you attempting to minimize Obama's spending or say that it something other than frighteningly enormous?
3. 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?

1. Then why the hell did Bush I and Clinton close military bases
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.

[timmgirvan]

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!

[DeltaBlues]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Jhonny Peharlta is a god..mm..mmmm.......???????
LaBron rocks and boxers are pussys...mmmmmmmm.....MMMMMMMMM?????





xxoo

It is my impression that festooning was not permitted here.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Let me explain this because you seem to have a problem forming independent thoughts.

1. 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.

1. When this happened before in the 80's the government hired people from other banks to...

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.