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

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

"Woodie" wrote in message
news:I8tAk.347947$yE1.10008@attbi_s21...
Lew Hodgett wrote:


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.


And... as most successful business people would do, they alter their course
and their actions based on what lies before them. Only a fool would want a
business leader or a politician to embrace a course and hold to it
regardless of what faces them now. Things change - smart people change to
deal with those changes. Fools sit and decry these things simply for the
sake of complaining. Bigger fools simply do not realize the need for
constant changes in direction in response to conditions surrounding you.
Then there are those who simply like to bitch...

--

-Mike-

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

"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

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...

--

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

"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

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

"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

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

"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-

"cm" wrote in message
...

Lew,

The real shame is the two choices we have for President.


Buy that man a beer.

--

-Mike-

"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

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

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

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

"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

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

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.

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

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.

"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-

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/

"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-

"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

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

"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?

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.

"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)

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

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/

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