"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...


All true, IMNSHO, both Morris and Mike.
And I agree (unfortunately) wth McPain that it is due to excessive
greed of the bankers - which is what regulators and legislators
should protect the "common" man from. Now, caveat emptor should go
both ways - the unscrupulous bankers and the stupid borrowers should
be punished, but in a way that leaves the rest of US (pun intended)
protected. If I have been prudently spending and borrowing within my
means, why should I have to bail out the aforementioned unscrupulous
bankers and the stupid borrowers?


Have you been listening in to the conversations in my neck of the
woods? Though it will never happen, the single most common thought in
our conversations has been that of holding the decision makers in
these events personally responsible. Financially responsible. And
not just in light of this debacle - this type of house of cards
problem persists throughout corporate America as CEO's play fast and
loose in the name of creating the appearance of profit and health.
They leave - they take their golden parachutes or their bonus package
and the mess is left behind. No matter - they're off with their
wealth. I'm every bit a capitalist, and I do not begrudge anyone
wealth - even excess wealth, but I do have a big problem with the ill
gotten gains of deceit.

EXACTLY!

But then there are the lobbyists ... I'll do you one good, but see,
there is this terrible provision ... Or, it would be so much better if
(there was a road to nowhere) ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid