Dear Right...

Originally Posted by 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!

Actually Cannon mentioned Haliburton.
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...

[hi_im_god]

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.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

mumble, mumble, mumble. babble, babble, babble. blah, blah. with some questions sprinkled in here and there.

I sometimes get the sad feeling that rather than spending your days as a teenager doing productive things like playing video games, watching porn, gambling, and climbing up on the top of your parents house to throw eggs in the neighbors swimming pool ... you wasted them around sour rich people at places wherever sour rich people gather.

[cowgirlintexas]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

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.

Mine too

Perhaps we should start a betting pool on how long it takes for him to get grounded to the basement

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

Closing unnecessary bases and military spending on the whole are two entirely separate issues

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

What happened in the 80's and what is going on now are two entirely different things.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I sometimes get the sad feeling that rather than spending your days as a teenager doing productive things like playing video games, watching porn, gambling, and climbing up on the top of your parents house to throw eggs in the neighbors swimming pool ... you wasted them around sour rich people at places wherever sour rich people gather.

unfortunately for you your own troubled childhood and its continuance into young adulthood doesnt equate to mine. I grew up in Saratoga. You cant get much better than that.

[herkhorse]

Saratoga is loaded with sour rich people.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Closing unnecessary bases and military spending on the whole are two entirely separate issues

They are not separate issues.
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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And let me ask you this question. Why wouldnt Obama want to keep the banks in govt control? .

Obama has already said multiple times he doesn't want that.

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.

Yes, please give me that list for Obama.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

They are not separate issues.
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).

Welcome to the "new America

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Obama has already said multiple times he doesn't want that.



Yes, please give me that list for Obama.

Obama HAS to say this. Why is this so difficult to grasp. Despite the glee of the left on the demise of the market, much of the saved wealth of private citizens is being frittered away. Any talk of nationalizing banks furthers that demise. Eventually this administration is going to feel the heat over the economy. Obama may say one thing but the actions or lack thereof of his treasury dept say something else.

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)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

It is far more complex than this.

[Cannon Shell]

The reality behind "cap and trade" and who is really hurts

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I read this earlier.

I anticipate that readers will attack the source rather than acknowledge the damage that this program will cause.

Most dont even bother actually reading the links because as liberals they are just intellectually superior to the rest of us.

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.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It is far more complex than this.

This is why I put a large frame of reference and called it
a spectrum. I think it is a good summary.

Primarily because I wrote it.

[Riot]

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)

Wow. Those are ... completely unimpressive.

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?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Most dont even bother actually reading the links because as liberals they are just intellectually superior to the rest of us.

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.

Cardus or Cannon, have you guys ever been called liberal?

The article:

Eventually we are goint to have to get off the carbon atom.
Its just a matter of time. Nuclear power is the first viable
alternative. If France produces 70-80% of their power using Nuclear why cant we?We produce more wind power in Texas than we
can actually deliver so our two coal plants in San Antonio
keep pumping along. And yes they cause bad air alerts,
something that we never use to get. Asthmatics and
allery sufferers have elevated effects with more crap
in the air. The Carbon atom comes with other elements
hanging off of it, even in the very cleanest coal and the
sweetest crude. And it gets in the air. No one denies this.
(I wont even get into the issue of greenhouse gases
as this is still debatable
as to how much effect humans have on climate.)

I dont know if its the right time, or the right way to do it,
but its pretty clear Obama wants us off the carbon atom.
This article is obviously much more specific than what
I am giving you. Ill-conceived taxes, promises broken,
etc...

As an aside we have had two kids die at our school due
to asthma attacks. There is no PE on air alert days as
both occurred on these days. We have (in this city)
many more breathing related problems that we ever
have after we put up additional turbines and Braunig
and Calaveras Lakes (our coal plants).

The article presents this carbon tax is the wrong way to do it.
Fine. It does make sense.The alternative is...
because we gotta get off
the carbon atom. We have to.

[ArlJim78]

the list is long, some of the big ones that come to mind are:

Obama vowed to go line by line through the budget, and would not except wasteful earmarks. that was during the campaign. now he says he will sign this current budget that contains 9000 earmarks because "we need to move forward"

during the campaign he made a huge deal how he would not hire lobbyists and that he would have none in his Whitehouse. the fact is at last count he has made 19 exceptions to this ironclad promise.

the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is the one the Petraeus outlined some time back under Bush. Obama has added nothing to this matter other than make a big press conference and announce it pubicly and take credit for keeping his campaign pledge, which he didn't. he did at one point advocate a much faster timetable.

he made a big deal recently announcing that he was redirecting a particular strike force, that had been training for missions in Iraq for months, to Afghanistan. this was supposedly another campaign promise kept, to pull out of Iraq and re-focus on Afghanistan. a week later and quite quietly it has been discovered that another identical strike squad will be sent to Iraq in order to replace the one that was redirected to Afghanistan. so, the bottom line is that he played a shell game to make it look like he was drawing down in Iraq.