O/T: What's Next?
First it was "Slick Willy", now it appears to be "Slippery John, The
Chameleon. McCain has repeatably emphasized that he is for less gov't, less regulation. Even voted for some of the legislation that created the loop holes the wall St sleaze balls used to their advantage. Now, with the fiasco on Wall St coming down around the countries ears, he wants to legislation so that it won't happen again. Well "Slippery", which is it? Total free market or a market with some gov't controls? You don't get both, pick one. Tell us a vision has come to you while you slept and it has given you new insight. If so, tell us something. McCain was against the "bailout" of AIG, now he admits it was a necessity. BTW, Hank Greenberg, founder and former majority stockholder of AIG, whose personal loss exceeds over $3.5 billion as a result of the AIG problem, calls the $85B transaction a "bridge loan" rather than a bailout, a short term loan to be repaid with interest. He indicates AIG can be saved and rebuilt. He built it the first time, maybe he knows something. Sure hope so. Some how, I think he has a better handle on things than any of the politicians. Wonder what position Chameleon John will take tomorrow? Stay tuned..................... Lew |
O/T: What's Next?
Lew Hodgett wrote:
First it was "Slick Willy", now it appears to be "Slippery John, The Chameleon. McCain has repeatably emphasized that he is for less gov't, less regulation. Even voted for some of the legislation that created the loop holes the wall St sleaze balls used to their advantage. So did, apparently, the majority of house and senate members. Now, with the fiasco on Wall St coming down around the countries ears, he wants to legislation so that it won't happen again. So do, apparently, the majority of house and senate members. Well "Slippery", which is it? Total free market or a market with some gov't controls? You can't possibly come up with a cite for him railing for "total free market", can you? Didn't think so. Stop making stuff up. You don't get both, pick one. see above. Tell us a vision has come to you while you slept and it has given you new insight. .... If so, tell us something. .... McCain was against the "bailout" of AIG, now he admits it was a necessity. BTW, Hank Greenberg, founder and former majority stockholder of AIG, whose personal loss exceeds over $3.5 billion as a result of the AIG problem, calls the $85B transaction a "bridge loan" rather than a bailout, a short term loan to be repaid with interest. He indicates AIG can be saved and rebuilt. He built it the first time, maybe he knows something. Sure hope so. Some how, I think he has a better handle on things than any of the politicians. Successful business people usually do. Wonder what position Chameleon John will take tomorrow? He's a politican. No telling. Stay tuned..................... Lew |
O/T: What's Next?
Woodie wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote: First it was "Slick Willy", now it appears to be "Slippery John, The Chameleon. McCain has repeatably emphasized that he is for less gov't, less regulation. Even voted for some of the legislation that created the loop holes the wall St sleaze balls used to their advantage. So did, apparently, the majority of house and senate members. Now, with the fiasco on Wall St coming down around the countries ears, he wants to legislation so that it won't happen again. So do, apparently, the majority of house and senate members. I want to see Lew rant equally about those who initiated this mess -- those who have used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for both their personal aggrandizement (Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, etc.) and for the political benefit of their benefactors in the Congress (Barnie Frank, Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangle, Chuck Schumer) by using those institutions for the massive re-distribution we are about to see in the name of "affordable housing". Those entities required that lenders give loans to people they knew would not be able to repay -- the real people who were going to pay were the taxpayers of the US because those loans were federally backed. -- If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough |
O/T: What's Next?
"Mark & Juanita" wrote:
I want to see Lew rant equally about those who initiated this mess -- Nice try to divert the discussion, but that crap doesn't stick on the wall. Back to the subject. What's next? Lew |
O/T: What's Next?
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote: I want to see Lew rant equally about those who initiated this mess -- Nice try to divert the discussion, but that crap doesn't stick on the wall. .... Except it's what happened... :( -- |
What's Next?
Well soon Obama will be in office and use his VAST experience to fix it
all.........maybe NOT! cm "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message news:llkAk.458$8v5.10@trnddc01... First it was "Slick Willy", now it appears to be "Slippery John, The Chameleon. McCain has repeatably emphasized that he is for less gov't, less regulation. Even voted for some of the legislation that created the loop holes the wall St sleaze balls used to their advantage. Now, with the fiasco on Wall St coming down around the countries ears, he wants to legislation so that it won't happen again. Well "Slippery", which is it? Total free market or a market with some gov't controls? You don't get both, pick one. Tell us a vision has come to you while you slept and it has given you new insight. If so, tell us something. McCain was against the "bailout" of AIG, now he admits it was a necessity. BTW, Hank Greenberg, founder and former majority stockholder of AIG, whose personal loss exceeds over $3.5 billion as a result of the AIG problem, calls the $85B transaction a "bridge loan" rather than a bailout, a short term loan to be repaid with interest. He indicates AIG can be saved and rebuilt. He built it the first time, maybe he knows something. Sure hope so. Some how, I think he has a better handle on things than any of the politicians. Wonder what position Chameleon John will take tomorrow? Stay tuned..................... Lew |
O/T: What's Next?
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
: Wonder what position Chameleon John will take tomorrow? He's a politican. No telling. And... as most successful business people would do, they alter their course and their actions based on what lies before them. I love it. Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound" to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and you characterize it as 'altering course.' With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope. If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate his action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full justification. Priceless. Scott |
O/T: What's Next?
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:22:25 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote: "Mark & Juanita" wrote: I want to see Lew rant equally about those who initiated this mess -- Nice try to divert the discussion, but that crap doesn't stick on the wall. I'd also like to hear Lew's take on it. After all, he brought up in his post the fiasco on wall street. M & J's post spot on as to the root cause of the current mess. If you want to talk about politicians playing to the audience and the changing environment, then you better bring them all into that discussion, not just the one you don't care for. And then we would be here all week. Frank Back to the subject. What's next? Lew |
O/T: What's Next?
"Elrond Hubbard" wrote:
I love it. Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound" to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and you characterize it as 'altering course.' With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope. If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate his action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full justification. Priceless. You noticed. McCain appears to have become a practioner of the Mitt Romney school of politics: IOW, say and do anything necessary to satisfy your audience at the moment. Forget principles, they no longer seem to matter. It's a damn shame. Lew |
O/T: What's Next?
Lew,
The real shame is the two choices we have for President. cm "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message news:4GQAk.455$pp3.111@trnddc06... "Elrond Hubbard" wrote: I love it. Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound" to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and you characterize it as 'altering course.' With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope. If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate his action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full justification. Priceless. You noticed. McCain appears to have become a practioner of the Mitt Romney school of politics: IOW, say and do anything necessary to satisfy your audience at the moment. Forget principles, they no longer seem to matter. It's a damn shame. Lew |
O/T: What's Next?
"Elrond Hubbard" wrote in message .45... I love it. Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound" to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and you characterize it as 'altering course.' With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope. Why, thank you. Really - I find that to be a great phrase. Though... you misunderstand my point. McCain didn't simply assume the former position three or four days ago. He reversed a position that he held of some time. He reversed it in light of very recent circumstances that nobody predicted, or could predict. If you wish to see it as flip flopping, that's exactly how you'll see it. It appears to me to be more of a response to events. If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate his action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full justification. Why do you say that? You've never seen me do that, and you don't even know enough about me to guess whether I'd do so, or not. Your projections are showing, sir. -- -Mike- |
O/T: What's Next?
|
O/T: What's Next?
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
: Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound" to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and you characterize it as 'altering course.' With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope. Why, thank you. Really - I find that to be a great phrase. Though... you misunderstand my point. McCain didn't simply assume the former position three or four days ago. He reversed a position that he held of some time. He reversed it in light of very recent circumstances that nobody predicted, or could predict. Excuse me? In light of *recent* circumstances? Does the man not read the news? Do you? If you wish to see it as flip flopping, that's exactly how you'll see it. It appears to me to be more of a response to events. It appears to me to be a response to his handlers. To go from "fundamentally sound" to "worst crisis since the depression" without any steps in between... there hasn't been a conversion that quick since Paul ambled off to Damascus. If the opposition candidate had done the same, you would excoriate his action as a flip-flop of Titanic proportions. With full justification. Why do you say that? You've never seen me do that, and you don't even know enough about me to guess whether I'd do so, or not. Your projections are showing, sir. My apologies for putting words into your mouth. I should not have assumed that just because you came to the defense of McCain's expedient philosophical backflip you would find the similar behavior in the other party to be absurd. Scott |
O/T: What's Next?
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote: I want to see Lew rant equally about those who initiated this mess -- Nice try to divert the discussion, but that crap doesn't stick on the wall. Back to the subject. What's next? Lew Yep, that's pretty much what I expected. ... and people accuse *me* of being partisan. It doesn't take much rummaging around to find significant amounts of issues with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; problem is, they all lead to Lew's favorite party. One of the Obama's leading economic advisors is Frank Raines, the guy who got off with over $50M while Fannie Mae was writing mortgages for which we taxpayers are going to wind up paying. -- If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough |
O/T: What's Next?
On Sep 18, 8:59*am, Woodie wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote: You can't possibly come up with a cite for him railing for "total free market", can you? Didn't think so. Stop making stuff up. Actually, I heard a quote the other day stating that he was 'always for less regulation'. So if there is less regulation, but regulation still existed, he would still be for less. The only case in which his desire for less would be satisfied, i.e., when there couldn't be *LESS REGULATION* would be a total free market. So no, Woodie didn't make it up. So you stop. Jackass. And what is with this free market ****e? I guess free markets are good when people die due to that freedom, or little people get hurt but when Republicans LOSE MONEY, that's just wrong. Did you happen to see that Republican Senator (or Congressman, I don't recall) the other night whining about how now is not the time to point fingers?! This IS the TIME! THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING *******S! Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White House are all dominated by the Democrats. Gonna be a lotta stinky Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows..... D'ohBoy |
O/T: What's Next?
On Sep 19, 4:44*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
*One of the Obama's leading economic advisors is Frank Raines, That is a lie, Mark. Raines has never been an advisor to Obama. Simply not true. Next time you join the smear gang, do your homework. Guess you don't want to talk about McCain's advisors? |
O/T: What's Next?
D'ohBoy wrote:
... snip This IS the TIME! THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING *******S! What the heck are you talking about? Gutting controls? Have you heard of Sarbanes-Oxley? There is so much regulation now that it takes an army of lawyers for a company to comply with all the regulations out there. The current problem now was facilitated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- two government run organizations that were making bad loans to people who couldn't pay them back -- at the behest of the Congress. Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White House are all dominated by the Democrats. Gonna be a lotta stinky Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows..... D'ohBoy So much fun. Hang on to your wallets boys, "Change!", it's all you're going to have left after the dems get done raising taxes should that very frightening scenario come to pass. -- If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough |
O/T: What's Next?
Mark & Juanita wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote: "Mark & Juanita" wrote: I want to see Lew rant equally about those who initiated this mess -- Nice try to divert the discussion, but that crap doesn't stick on the wall. Back to the subject. What's next? Lew Yep, that's pretty much what I expected. ... and people accuse *me* of being partisan. It doesn't take much rummaging around to find significant amounts of issues with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; problem is, they all lead to Lew's favorite party. One of the Obama's leading economic advisors is Frank Raines, the guy who got off with over $50M while Fannie Mae was writing mortgages for which we taxpayers are going to wind up paying. Close but no cigar. This from http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...9/1427108.aspx From NBC's Mark Murray and NBC/NJ's Adam Aigner-Treworgy On the campaign trail in Minnesota today, McCain incorrectly suggested that the executive pay that former Fannie Mae CEOs Frank Raines and Jim Johnson earned came from taxpayers. "That same executive got $21 million of your money," McCain said of Johnson. "And the other CEO, another supporter of Senator Obama, Mr. Raines got $25 million of your money. Let's tell them to give it back. Let's tell them to give it back." Lucian Bebchuk of Harvard Law School, an expert on corporate governance, confirmed to First Read that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were private companies until being recently taken over by the federal government (which came after Raines' and Johnson's tenures). Bebchuk said that maybe McCain was referring to past Fannie shareholders in the audience when he asserted that the executive compensation was "your money." Or perhaps McCain was making the point -- very loosely -- that now the federal government has taken over Fannie, any money that Raines or Johnson received is money taxpayers no longer have. But both assertions, he said, would be stretches. Rich Ferlauto, the director of corporate governance and pension investment at the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees -- a union which has endorsed Obama in the presidential contest -- was more blunt about Raines' and Johnson's compensation "It was not taxpayer money," he said. "It was shareholder money." hang in there, jo4hn |
O/T: What's Next?
On Sep 19, 4:51*pm, "D'ohBoy" wrote:
On Sep 18, 8:59*am, Woodie wrote: Lew Hodgett wrote: You can't possibly come up with a cite for him railing for "total free market", can you? Didn't think so. Stop making stuff up. Actually, I heard a quote the other day stating that he was 'always for less regulation'. *So if there is less regulation, but regulation still existed, he would still be for less. *The only case in which his desire for less would be satisfied, i.e., when there couldn't be *LESS REGULATION* would be a total free market. So no, Woodie didn't make it up. *So you stop. *Jackass. And what is with this free market ****e? *I guess free markets are good when people die due to that freedom, or little people get hurt but when Republicans LOSE MONEY, that's just wrong. Did you happen to see that Republican Senator (or Congressman, I don't recall) the other night whining about how now is not the time to point fingers?! This IS the TIME! THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. *EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING *******S! Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White House are all dominated by the Democrats. *Gonna be a lotta stinky Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows..... D'ohBoy What I get a kick out of, is all the neocon/fundie nutbars whining that it was all Clinton's fault. They were some laws passed during the Clinton years that certainly were partially responsible for the mess, but the Oh-So-Smart business savvy Repuglicans has 7.5 year to fix Clinton's wrongs.... Now Bush wants "some extra/more" powers to fix things...is there nothing else that asshole thinks about but "more power"???? You know, if Obama threw money at a problem like the Repuglicans would be all over him for his socialist/tax-crazy ideas. |
O/T: What's Next?
On Sep 19, 5:38*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
D'ohBoy wrote: .. snip This IS the TIME! THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. *EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING *******S! * What the heck are you talking about? *Gutting controls? *Have you heard of Sarbanes-Oxley? *There is so much regulation now that it takes an army of lawyers for a company to comply with all the regulations out there. *The current problem now was facilitated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- two government run organizations that were making bad loans to people who couldn't pay them back -- at the behest of the Congress. * Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White House are all dominated by the Democrats. *Gonna be a lotta stinky Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows..... D'ohBoy * So much fun. *Hang on to your wallets boys, "Change!", it's all you're going to have left after the dems get done raising taxes should that very frightening scenario come to pass. How nice. Stick your country with a bill, JUST prior to passing the torch to a Democratic president. What a class act. It will be, of course, Obama's fault when the citizens of the US are going to have to pay for W's economic policies. |
O/T: What's Next?
Mark & Juanita wrote:
D'ohBoy wrote: .. snip This IS the TIME! THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING *******S! What the heck are you talking about? Gutting controls? Have you heard of Sarbanes-Oxley? There is so much regulation now that it takes an army of lawyers for a company to comply with all the regulations out there. The current problem now was facilitated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- two government run organizations that were making bad loans to people who couldn't pay them back -- at the behest of the Congress. Lessee now. "The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and commonly called SOX or Sarbox; is a United States federal law enacted on July 30, 2002 in response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of the affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets. Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH), the Act was approved by the House by a vote of 423-3 and by the Senate 99-0. President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt."" [Wikipedia] Those pesky Democrats snuck that one through. Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White House are all dominated by the Democrats. Gonna be a lotta stinky Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows..... D'ohBoy So much fun. Hang on to your wallets boys, "Change!", it's all you're going to have left after the dems get done raising taxes should that very frightening scenario come to pass. Hell yes! Let our grandchildren pay off all those countries that we are borrowing from. Oh and some of those countries don't always have our best interests at heart. |
O/T: What's Next?
jo4hn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote: Lew Hodgett wrote: "Mark & Juanita" wrote: I want to see Lew rant equally about those who initiated this mess -- Nice try to divert the discussion, but that crap doesn't stick on the wall. Back to the subject. What's next? Lew Yep, that's pretty much what I expected. ... and people accuse *me* of being partisan. It doesn't take much rummaging around to find significant amounts of issues with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; problem is, they all lead to Lew's favorite party. One of the Obama's leading economic advisors is Frank Raines, the guy who got off with over $50M while Fannie Mae was writing mortgages for which we taxpayers are going to wind up paying. Close but no cigar. This from http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...9/1427108.aspx It misses the point. Those two companies were government-backed companies. They set policies in accordance with government objectives ("affordable housing", etc). The push to expand the "American dream" was expounded upon in an address to the Congressional Black Caucus by Daniel Mudd for example are indicative of what this "company" was doing, knowing its loans were backed by the government so the taxpayers would wind up paying for any bad loans. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0. You can take or leave the pieces of commentary in the clip, but the real words of Mudd (all strung together, not taken out of context) show a political agenda and objectives that were running this GSE. A GSE (government sponsored enterprise)that couldn't even obey government accounting rules when real private enterprises were expected to do so: http://www.gsereport.com/2005/Dec%2013-January%203(2).pdf. As I pointed out in a previous link, their sponsors in Congress (who were using "affordable housing" to buy votes) ridiculed the administration when the administration rightly attempted to exert additional oversight and loudly claimed that there was no impending disaster looming with those agencies (Barney Frank). Is it a bit of hyperbole to say that Raines, Gorelick, Mudd, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH coalition, Chris Dodd, Obama, Kerry, et al got away with taxpayer money? Perhaps, but only a bit when you look at where they were spending money, how they were spending it and the low likelihood that the borrowers would be able to repay and that taxpayers were ultimately going to have to back up those loans. -- If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough |
O/T: What's Next?
jo4hn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote: D'ohBoy wrote: .. snip This IS the TIME! THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING *******S! What the heck are you talking about? Gutting controls? Have you heard of Sarbanes-Oxley? There is so much regulation now that it takes an army of lawyers for a company to comply with all the regulations out there. The current problem now was facilitated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- two government run organizations that were making bad loans to people who couldn't pay them back -- at the behest of the Congress. Lessee now. "The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and commonly called SOX or Sarbox; is a United States federal law enacted on July 30, 2002 in response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of the affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets. Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH), the Act was approved by the House by a vote of 423-3 and by the Senate 99-0. President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt."" [Wikipedia] Those pesky Democrats snuck that one through. Geez, you don't pay any attention here. The point was that SOX is an extremely onerous regulation (I know this based upon personal experience in my job, and I'm only peripherally affected) that taps deep into corporate workings with (from the looks of Lehman and AIG) very little benefit. This was in response to the original poster's ridiculous assertion that controls and regulations had been gutted by the sitting administration. You actually make my point for me -- this ponderous piece of legislation was passed during the current administration when the Republicans were in control of both houses -- hardly the "gutting" that the OP was screaming about. Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White House are all dominated by the Democrats. Gonna be a lotta stinky Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows..... D'ohBoy So much fun. Hang on to your wallets boys, "Change!", it's all you're going to have left after the dems get done raising taxes should that very frightening scenario come to pass. Hell yes! Let our grandchildren pay off all those countries that we are borrowing from. Oh and some of those countries don't always have our best interests at heart. You know you are welcome to send as much money to the government as you wish. You don't have to limit yourself to only the amount of taxes you have due. Why are you expecting to use other peoples' money to solve this problem? -- If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough |
O/T: What's Next?
"Mark & Juanita" wrote: Yep, that's pretty much what I expected. ... and people accuse *me* of being partisan. Good, glad you understand. This is a thread I started, so don't try to hijack it, if you want a thread, try starting your own. Back to the subject. What's next? Lew |
O/T: What's Next?
D'ohBoy wrote:
On Sep 18, 8:59 am, Woodie wrote: Lew Hodgett wrote: You can't possibly come up with a cite for him railing for "total free market", can you? Didn't think so. Stop making stuff up. Actually, I heard a quote the other day stating that he was 'always for less regulation'. So if there is less regulation, but regulation still existed, he would still be for less. The only case in which his desire for less would be satisfied, i.e., when there couldn't be *LESS REGULATION* would be a total free market. So no, Woodie didn't make it up. So you stop. Jackass. You're misquoting. I said the above "You can't possibly..." paragraph in response to Lew. As for your logic... you're taking McCain's position, and running to a ridiculous extreme in which there is no government regulation (hasn't happened in any of our lifetimes, and isn't likely to ever happen) You're attributing to McCain your own extreme interpretation based on a near impossible scenario. It's all far removed from reality. If that isn't 'making stuff up', I don't know what is. As for the rant below - you shouldn't have taken the brown acid at the DNC. And what is with this free market ****e? I guess free markets are good when people die due to that freedom, or little people get hurt but when Republicans LOSE MONEY, that's just wrong. Did you happen to see that Republican Senator (or Congressman, I don't recall) the other night whining about how now is not the time to point fingers?! This IS the TIME! THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING *******S! Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White House are all dominated by the Democrats. Gonna be a lotta stinky Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows..... D'ohBoy |
O/T: What's Next?
On Sep 19, 7:23*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote: *Yep, that's pretty much what I expected. *... and people accuse *me* of being partisan. Good, glad you understand. This is a thread I started, so don't try to hijack it, if you want a thread, try starting *your own. Back to the subject. *What's next? *Lew I'll tell you what's next. You became a socialist nation today. |
O/T: What's Next?
Mark & Juanita wrote:
jo4hn wrote: Mark & Juanita wrote: D'ohBoy wrote: .. snip This IS the TIME! THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING *******S! What the heck are you talking about? Gutting controls? Have you heard of Sarbanes-Oxley? There is so much regulation now that it takes an army of lawyers for a company to comply with all the regulations out there. The current problem now was facilitated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- two government run organizations that were making bad loans to people who couldn't pay them back -- at the behest of the Congress. Lessee now. "The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and commonly called SOX or Sarbox; is a United States federal law enacted on July 30, 2002 in response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of the affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets. Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH), the Act was approved by the House by a vote of 423-3 and by the Senate 99-0. President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt."" [Wikipedia] Those pesky Democrats snuck that one through. Geez, you don't pay any attention here. The point was that SOX is an extremely onerous regulation (I know this based upon personal experience in my job, and I'm only peripherally affected) that taps deep into corporate workings with (from the looks of Lehman and AIG) very little benefit. This was in response to the original poster's ridiculous assertion that controls and regulations had been gutted by the sitting administration. You actually make my point for me -- this ponderous piece of legislation was passed during the current administration when the Republicans were in control of both houses -- hardly the "gutting" that the OP was screaming about. Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White House are all dominated by the Democrats. Gonna be a lotta stinky Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows..... D'ohBoy So much fun. Hang on to your wallets boys, "Change!", it's all you're going to have left after the dems get done raising taxes should that very frightening scenario come to pass. Hell yes! Let our grandchildren pay off all those countries that we are borrowing from. Oh and some of those countries don't always have our best interests at heart. You know you are welcome to send as much money to the government as you wish. You don't have to limit yourself to only the amount of taxes you have due. Why are you expecting to use other peoples' money to solve this problem? I am not expecting to use other peoples' money to solve this or any other problem. It is called sarcasm. Look it up. It's new. I have little control over the debt being run up by the current administration. Nearly a half trillion per year in the deficit column. If you're going to be tough, you better be dumb |
O/T: What's Next?
On Sep 20, 12:48*am, jo4hn wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote: jo4hn wrote: Mark & Juanita wrote: D'ohBoy wrote: .. snip This IS the TIME! THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED BY THE REPUBLICANS OVER YEARS OF GUTTING CONTROLS ON THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE BEARING THEIR BITTER FRUIT. *EAT UP YOU SCUMSUCKING *******S! * What the heck are you talking about? *Gutting controls? *Have you heard * of Sarbanes-Oxley? *There is so much regulation now that it takes an army of lawyers for a company to comply with all the regulations out there. *The current problem now was facilitated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- two government run organizations that were making bad loans to people who couldn't pay them back -- at the behest of the Congress. Lessee now. *"The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and commonly called SOX or Sarbox; is a United States federal law enacted on July 30, 2002 in response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of the affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets. Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH), the Act was approved by the House by a vote of 423-3 and by the Senate 99-0. President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt."" [Wikipedia] Those pesky Democrats snuck that one through. * Geez, you don't pay any attention here. *The point was that SOX is an extremely onerous regulation (I know this based upon personal experience in my job, and I'm only peripherally affected) that taps deep into corporate workings with (from the looks of Lehman and AIG) very little benefit. This was in response to the original poster's ridiculous assertion that controls and regulations had been gutted by the sitting administration. *You actually make my point for me -- this ponderous piece of legislation was passed during the current administration when the Republicans were in control of both houses -- hardly the "gutting" that the OP was screaming about. Man, this is gonna be so much fun when the Congress, Senate and White House are all dominated by the Democrats. *Gonna be a lotta stinky Repugnant carcass swinging from the gallows..... D'ohBoy * So much fun. *Hang on to your wallets boys, "Change!", it's all you're going to have left after the dems get done raising taxes should that very frightening scenario come to pass. Hell yes! *Let our grandchildren pay off all those countries that we are borrowing from. *Oh and some of those countries don't always have our best interests at heart. * You know you are welcome to send as much money to the government as you wish. *You don't have to limit yourself to only the amount of taxes you have due. *Why are you expecting to use other peoples' money to solve this problem? I am not expecting to use other peoples' money to solve this or any other problem. *It is called sarcasm. *Look it up. *It's new. *I have little control over the debt being run up by the current administration. * Nearly a half trillion per year in the deficit column. If you're going to be tough, you better be dumb There should be war-crime trials. |
O/T: What's Next?
"Elrond Hubbard" wrote in message .46... "Mike Marlow" wrote in : Over the course of 12 hours, John McCain does a 180 degree four-wheel locked-brake slide from saying "The economy is fundamentally sound" to "This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression," and you characterize it as 'altering course.' With spin like that, you could get a job as a human gyroscope. Why, thank you. Really - I find that to be a great phrase. Though... you misunderstand my point. McCain didn't simply assume the former position three or four days ago. He reversed a position that he held of some time. He reversed it in light of very recent circumstances that nobody predicted, or could predict. Excuse me? In light of *recent* circumstances? Does the man not read the news? Do you? Do you correspond intelligently? Just what in the hell is that supposed to mean? Other than yet another failed attempt by you to throw a jab. You are proving yourself to be unworthy of any intelligent form of conversation. Content yourself with simply throwing out meaningless insults. You can converse with yourself. -- -Mike- |
O/T: What's Next?
Mike Marlow wrote:
He reversed it in light of very recent circumstances that nobody predicted, or could predict. [1] I think the only people who could have failed to predict it are those who believed that the housing "bubble" would continue indefinitely. In Des Moines, an average person earns 30-40K. The average price of a new home here passed the quarter-million mark a year or two ago, and homes were sold as quickly as banks could process mortgage applications. [2] The legislature recognized that lenders had become too greedy and that credit card debt had become a serious problem for many cardholders. It was interesting to note that in the course of the congressional hearings, it was the lenders' predatory practices that were identified as the most significant part of the problem. [3] Under pressure from lobbyists representing lenders who recognized that borrowers were over-extending, the legislature tightened up the bankruptcy laws to protect the lenders - a clear departure from the principle that bankruptcy laws were to protect honest debtors. [4] With the bankruptcy legislation in place, lenders exercised their options to raise rates on ARM's - and foreclosure rates skyrocketed. Unfortunately for the lenders, they had made mortages for homes whose actual values were considerably less than the amount of the loan and, following foreclosure, could not recover the principal by selling the property in a rapidly disintegrating market. IMO, any one (and certainly all) of these things was sufficient to make a crystal ball unnecessary. YMMV. -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/ |
O/T: What's Next?
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message ... Mike Marlow wrote: He reversed it in light of very recent circumstances that nobody predicted, or could predict. [1] I think the only people who could have failed to predict it are those who believed that the housing "bubble" would continue indefinitely. In Des Moines, an average person earns 30-40K. The average price of a new home here passed the quarter-million mark a year or two ago, and homes were sold as quickly as banks could process mortgage applications. [2] The legislature recognized that lenders had become too greedy and that credit card debt had become a serious problem for many cardholders. It was interesting to note that in the course of the congressional hearings, it was the lenders' predatory practices that were identified as the most significant part of the problem. [3] Under pressure from lobbyists representing lenders who recognized that borrowers were over-extending, the legislature tightened up the bankruptcy laws to protect the lenders - a clear departure from the principle that bankruptcy laws were to protect honest debtors. [4] With the bankruptcy legislation in place, lenders exercised their options to raise rates on ARM's - and foreclosure rates skyrocketed. Unfortunately for the lenders, they had made mortages for homes whose actual values were considerably less than the amount of the loan and, following foreclosure, could not recover the principal by selling the property in a rapidly disintegrating market. Excellent points one and all. But - while they are all true, they only point out the fundamental greed of the system and they only pessimistically predict the future. What those points don't do though is explain the suddenness of Lehman, AIG, Morgan, etc. That's what took everybody by surprise. One would not have to agree with the prevailing practices to feel more secure in the economy, up until Wall Street took a dive. That suddenness is what I was making reference to in my statement. -- -Mike- |
O/T: What's Next?
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
: "Morris Dovey" wrote in message ... Mike Marlow wrote: He reversed it in light of very recent circumstances that nobody predicted, or could predict. [1] I think the only people who could have failed to predict it are those who believed that the housing "bubble" would continue indefinitely. In Des Moines, an average person earns 30-40K. The average price of a new home here passed the quarter-million mark a year or two ago, and homes were sold as quickly as banks could process mortgage applications. [2] The legislature recognized that lenders had become too greedy and that credit card debt had become a serious problem for many cardholders. It was interesting to note that in the course of the congressional hearings, it was the lenders' predatory practices that were identified as the most significant part of the problem. [3] Under pressure from lobbyists representing lenders who recognized that borrowers were over-extending, the legislature tightened up the bankruptcy laws to protect the lenders - a clear departure from the principle that bankruptcy laws were to protect honest debtors. [4] With the bankruptcy legislation in place, lenders exercised their options to raise rates on ARM's - and foreclosure rates skyrocketed. Unfortunately for the lenders, they had made mortages for homes whose actual values were considerably less than the amount of the loan and, following foreclosure, could not recover the principal by selling the property in a rapidly disintegrating market. Excellent points one and all. But - while they are all true, they only point out the fundamental greed of the system and they only pessimistically predict the future. What those points don't do though is explain the suddenness of Lehman, AIG, Morgan, etc. That's what took everybody by surprise. One would not have to agree with the prevailing practices to feel more secure in the economy, up until Wall Street took a dive. That suddenness is what I was making reference to in my statement. 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? And to protect the future, more regulation, including more openness with short sellers, is absolutely required. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
O/T: What's Next?
Robatoy wrote in news:a460ee1e-e24e-4d3f-b0db-
: There should be war-crime trials. No, retroactive taxation on war profiteering is better. And that should include taxation to pay for the future care of the war victims on all sides (both physical and mental trauma). -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
O/T: What's Next?
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message Excellent points one and all. But - while they are all true, they only point out the fundamental greed of the system and they only pessimistically predict the future. What those points don't do though is explain the suddenness of Lehman, AIG, Morgan, etc. That's what took everybody by surprise. One would not have to agree with the prevailing practices to feel more secure in the economy, up until Wall Street took a dive. That suddenness is what I was making reference to in my statement. -- -Mike- Mike, you say that as if it is a bad thing. I've always wanted to own my own insurance company and now I do. I'm going to get interest on my money, of course so that makes it a great investment. The interest will assure that I have a comfortable retirement when the checks start rolling in. We're now eligible for the "Friends and Family Discount" on al AIG policies too. With the added interest income, maybe I'll buy General Motors. As an owner, we all get company cars. Are you in? |
O/T: What's Next?
On Sep 20, 7:56*am, Han wrote:
Robatoy wrote in news:a460ee1e-e24e-4d3f-b0db- : There should be war-crime trials. No, retroactive taxation on war profiteering is better. *And that should include taxation to pay for the future care of the war victims on all sides (both physical and mental trauma). Retribution AND punishment. |
O/T: What's Next?
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote Mike, you say that as if it is a bad thing. I've always wanted to own my own insurance company and now I do. I'm going to get interest on my money, of course so that makes it a great investment. The interest will assure that I have a comfortable retirement when the checks start rolling in. We're now eligible for the "Friends and Family Discount" on al AIG policies too. With the added interest income, maybe I'll buy General Motors. As an owner, we all get company cars. Are you in? And since I have no credit card debt - zero, zip, nada, none, I should go out and get me a boatload while I can so it can be forgiven. .... and speaking of boatloads, there's that bass boat I've always wanted, and it's only $32,000 .... used! I'm in! -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 8/18/08 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
O/T: What's Next?
Robatoy wrote in
: On Sep 20, 7:56*am, Han wrote: Robatoy wrote in news:a460ee1e-e24e-4d3f-b0db- : There should be war-crime trials. No, retroactive taxation on war profiteering is better. *And that should include taxation to pay for the future care of the war victims on all sides (both physical and mental trauma). Retribution AND punishment. Monetary retribution and physical punishment, preferably. (I had to manually fix the quotation indentations, don't know why) -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
O/T: What's Next?
Mike Marlow wrote:
Excellent points one and all. But - while they are all true, they only point out the fundamental greed of the system and they only pessimistically predict the future. What those points don't do though is explain the suddenness of Lehman, AIG, Morgan, etc. That's what took everybody by surprise. One would not have to agree with the prevailing practices to feel more secure in the economy, up until Wall Street took a dive. That suddenness is what I was making reference to in my statement. Greed was only the motivation. What the greed produced was an unstable structure without real support, like a house of cards. When it fails, it doesn't fail slowly, one element at a time, but in an accelerating cascade of failures. The suddenness shouldn't be a surprise. It's worth noting that while Congress was aware of the mess all along the way, it chose to not act to promote the interests of ordinary citizens in a disturbingly bipartisan fashion. -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/ |
O/T: What's Next?
On Sep 20, 10:12*am, "Swingman" wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote Mike, you say that as if it is a bad thing. *I've always wanted to own my own insurance company and now I do. I'm going to get interest on my money, of course so that makes it a great investment. *The interest will assure that I have a comfortable retirement when the checks start rolling in. We're now eligible for the "Friends and Family Discount" on al AIG policies too. With the added interest income, maybe I'll buy General Motors. *As an owner, we all get company cars. *Are you in? And since I have no credit card debt - zero, zip, nada, none, I should go out and get me a boatload while I can so it can be forgiven. ... and speaking of boatloads, there's that bass boat I've always wanted, and it's only $32,000 .... used! I'm in! --www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 8/18/08 KarlC@ (the obvious) At a limit of say, 32 x 3 lb bass times 10 years.. lemme see... that's about $ 30 per pound of bass. Not including fuel, magaritas and maintenance. That's okay. I paid $ 600 per duck on a trip once. G |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter