A letter to Dear esteemed Congressmen:
I kindly request a bailout check for 15 million.
Ok, you're asking why. I see congress has been giving out taxpayer money to bail out banks. The rich CEO's and bank executives are getting millions of dollars in payouts as a result of getting bailed out at taxpayer expense. It's true that I was not responsible for putting thousands or millions of Americans out of home and house or in underwater loans but since congress feels fit to bail out these rich executives with taxpayer money, it only seems fit to send one of these bailout checks to one of the taxpayers just to be fair.
If you feel that paying a taxpayer is inappropiate, please change the bailouts to take away the millions of dollars the CEO's and rich executives are receiving as a result of these taxpayer paid bailouts.
Note: Economics/trading freebie: If you think eliminating people who short the market will help, just think about this. In the event of a market crash, it is the shorts who must eventually buy stocks back that slow down any potential crash. Without the guy who shorted a stock trying to lock in his profit by buying a stock back at a lower price, any stock crash will be much more severe. If you want to look for blame for short feeding frenzy, I suggest the big hedge funds who may or may not be targeting companies. That's just something I heard and I don't know if it's true or not.
Sincerely,
a taxpayer who could use a bailout.
If you do feel appropiate to give me a bailout, you can get my information from the Founder of this website. I'm sure he would provide it for a small extra payout.
Ok, you're asking why. I see congress has been giving out taxpayer money to bail out banks. The rich CEO's and bank executives are getting millions of dollars in payouts as a result of getting bailed out at taxpayer expense. It's true that I was not responsible for putting thousands or millions of Americans out of home and house or in underwater loans but since congress feels fit to bail out these rich executives with taxpayer money, it only seems fit to send one of these bailout checks to one of the taxpayers just to be fair.
If you feel that paying a taxpayer is inappropiate, please change the bailouts to take away the millions of dollars the CEO's and rich executives are receiving as a result of these taxpayer paid bailouts.
Note: Economics/trading freebie: If you think eliminating people who short the market will help, just think about this. In the event of a market crash, it is the shorts who must eventually buy stocks back that slow down any potential crash. Without the guy who shorted a stock trying to lock in his profit by buying a stock back at a lower price, any stock crash will be much more severe. If you want to look for blame for short feeding frenzy, I suggest the big hedge funds who may or may not be targeting companies. That's just something I heard and I don't know if it's true or not.
Sincerely,
a taxpayer who could use a bailout.
If you do feel appropiate to give me a bailout, you can get my information from the Founder of this website. I'm sure he would provide it for a small extra payout.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
135 comments
Bottom line bailouts of billionaires has benefits for all and clearly, imo, is more worthwhile than printing a million here and there to blow up this village or that village.
It seems so undemocratic not to have President Bush for another 4 years----I can feel in my bones he could be reelected in perpetuity. :)
Dr. Ron Paul asserted a very similar type of fallacious logic. He claimed that creating new money (the good old power to print money or create computer credits) to save AIG and similar businesses is *a form of tax that everyone pays.* Essentially more dollars equals less value per dollar; tempting, but not necessarily true. It is like saying if the government doubles the number of dollars in circulation overnight, then the price of *everything* will double. The reality is the increased number of dollars may cause some prices to fall, others to rise, and still others to remain flat.
This new money that was created (for AIG) may actually have prevented the dollar from collapsing. The system is a fiasco, but fortunately smoke and mirrors can work miracles allowing the cattle class to continue waving their flags and more importantly enjoying Big Macs and Taco Bells.
OTOH, new money can be fairly destructive depending on a person's needs and situation. For example, you own a nice home and just wish to take life easy and die in your home at a ripe old age. If new money is increasing the dollar value of your home, however, then you might not be able to really afford the taxes on the higher dollar value. Remember even though the funny money is just a computer credit or a new bill it DOES have the power to take real assets such as your home from you. Another example, again involving funny money and taxes. You own a real asset such as land that you've been holding for your retirement. Religiously paying property taxes and other fees for the property every year. Finally, you sell at a dollar "profit" and pay more taxes. If you look at the real purchasing power of those dollars, then your "profit" may actually be a loss depending on what goods or services you wished to purchase with your newly acquired dollars. Inflation 3%? Well, that is extrememly subjective because the government can see a car doubling in price as actually decreasing in price for inflation reporting purposes---the claim is that when the car doubles in price you have to consider all the valuable extras such as pollution control devices or plastic bumpers. Doesn't matter whether the consumer wanted these extras or not. Hell, on one new car that I attempted to purchase I told the dealer that I'd pay to have the extras removed. Other people may have loved the extras---point is the government made the choices for people and then decided how value laden those choices were. A Big Mac may have more value in govenment eyes with only 2 pickle slices rather than 3 pickle slices. Real consumers might prefer a greater or fewer number of pickle slices or may not give a damn one way or the other.
However, I will say people ARE getting somewhat what we deserve by continuously electing incompetent and corrupt Congress Critters.
Even if you could wave a magic wand so that only competent and non-corrupt individuals could serve in Congress, I doubt very much whether there would much improvement if any improvement. It might even be worse due to core moral values. Remember the communist maxim: Property is theft.
Milton Friedman said most people want a dog that meows or a cat that barks. :) Too true. BTW, although I think Milton Friedman was the greatest his explanation for why the dollar has value was disheartening. Either he had a monumental blind spot or he didn't think people could handle the truth.
"Common people" were buying homes way too expense, dipping way too deeply into their credit, and investing in the companies giving and buying up the junk loans.
The "common people" would also have never allowed the government to ease up on the Fed and allow interest rates to rise, because they want the exaggerated and surreal growth of the 90s early 2000s to continue forever. No one wanted to look at who the man behind the curtain was and see the house of cards it all rested on.
Everyone gets blamed in this one: The common man, the greedy CEOs, the White House, congress, the federal reserve.
From what I saw the "common man" was more often the victim than not. I hear this filth about how the "common man" shouldn't have bought the expensive home. Pure poppycock. Here in Miami at onset of the fraud you had young families and surprise surprise these young families wanted a little security and ownership. Truly criminal desires if you hear the government lovers tell their story. :(
So young family was saving and waiting to buy their first home. But, prices start to climb. Their savings while growing from pitiful interest decreases in real value (as far as owning a home) every month so fear sets. Well, some smarty pants shows them how they can afford the "expensive" home. It is more than a little scary, but dang the scenario of relentless rent increases don't look so hot either. :( So, you do the best you can: roll the dice and pray the inflationary spiral truly goes bonkers to the point the debt on the "expensive" home looks like pocket change. That happened in the 1970s. You either play the government game or you risk watching your paper money be joke as far as buying a home.
Those who didn't play the game paid a hell of price in rent for the many years of the fraud. In *theory*, those lucky ones who didn't borrow *should* be in prime to position to buy a home assuming the rent increases during the fraud didn't bankrupt 'em. My bet is the banks have made it extremely difficult for the "common man" to borrow for a home right about now. Sad, to say but pretty much the government just needs to come in and run the whole show. And, not just as far as homes. Put the criminals in charge of everything.
As far as blaming the "common man" generally speaking that "common man" even if intelligent (normally not the case) is given 2 choices neither of which is so attractive. Heaven forbid he tries to get a little security and ownership of real assets for his family.
If you have to give Bill Gates and friends a trillion dollars isn't that a small price to pay if it keeps the dollar from collapsing. Forget the idiotic class warfare for a moment. It isn't about fairness or what is right or wrong, when it comes to protecting the wealth of the masses is it acceptable to giveaway trillions of dollars to save billionaires?
Yes, one can definitely blame the U.S. government. Not only for printing money that leads to buy now before it gets more expensive fear, but also for backing these loans and requiring banks to have a certain number of "red area" loans.
The mortgage brokers just suddenly got greedy? :) Yeah, right. No, the rules of the game changed. And, the rule writer was the U.S. government. President Clinton pushed for greater home ownership; not a bad thing, imho, even if it increases risk. The question is when re-writing of reinterpreting federal rules what are the forseeable results?
I know realtors, home builders, mortgage brokers, investors, and among the folks in the business that I knew it wasn't any deep dark secret that the rules had changed. And, changed for many reasons, such as President Clinton's push for greater home ownership.
The investors that I spoke with thought the pop could go either way i.e. a market crash with foreclosures or a dollar collapse where just thank you lucky stars as the dollar collapses to peso levels or lower. These was years before the market collapsed, btw. Dr. Ron Paul was talking about the possibility of a free fall of the U.S. dollar---may never happen or could be another replay of what happened to the Soviets.
Technology can still save the day, imho. For example, I don't believe there is an energy crisis. No not some horrible conspiracy to keep cheap, clean, wonderful fuel from the masses. Rather it is a question of blindness and cheap oil ($20 per barrel pre-Bush?). I read this editorial piece by a Nobel winning economist who aggressively asserted FREE fuel would have negligible impact on economic well being. Yep, that is what the learned moron claimed. Oh, he supported the idiocy showing how the cost of most products was comprised of 10% or 20% in fuel costs. Therefore, Bright Eyes says FREE fuel is the equivalent of people getting a 20% raise. Not a big deal in the big picture. Apparently, even Nobel winners can gaping blind spots. FREE energy changes the game in ways people can even begin to comprehend.
Anyway, higher gasoline prices put all types of formerly more expensive options on the table; if the government doesn't get in the way innovation is spurred and conservation is put in place. Maybe liquid coal will be the replacement. Or, the hydrogen fuel cell. Sounds silly, but maybe solar will continue to get more efficient. Remember the first computers were a joke and now BANG lots of power on the desktop or laptop.
Yes he should have been able to understand the terms of his loan conditions. Can't the common man read? He should have been able to see the growth in the economy/housing market could not be sustained forever. He should have understand that ARM meant really great as long as interest rates are low, not so great when they calm down and get high again. In short the common man was short sited. You can't seriously deny that. He was living in a fantasy world, and most who look back now, I'm sure will admit it if they are honest with themselves.
Heck, I certainly could have got myself locked into a super expensive loan during the time, but I knew property values here were insane, and, hence, couldn't last like that forever. I'm wondering now if I was lucky/clever to dodge that bullet, or those who do get bailed out will just be rewarded for their foolishness.
Agreed.
The country is in desperate need of a Libertarian revolution. Both because of the current crisis, the Bush/Cheney facist like consolidation of power, the war on drugs, and a million other reasons.
Unfortunately, I don't think there was enough pain this time around to make it happen. Things we probably stabilize now, and people will buy into the "it happened because there wasn't enough government intervention/regulation. More socialism is needed" line. Then things don't get better, until the complete collapse the next time when governments are completely tapped out.
The scariest thing is seeing that, even now, people are not taking responsibility for what they did during this process ("the common man is innocent here") and just looking for a scapegoat other than themselves.
Couldn't be sustained? Growth? You printing cash like there is no tomorrow. The amount of money the government can print is endless. The question is does the government follow history and print print print or is there a credit contraction? Gee, no credit contraction and all those little dollars in the bank will be mighty puny, while those who bought at inflated prices years earlier will look like geniuses. Besides when faced with ever higher rents it appears like the typical lose/lose that government offers. Lose is you don't buy the inflated properties because the money becomes like pesos or lose because the rents go ever higher. I wouldn't criticize those who gambled on spiraling inflation over a credit contraction. Besides those that just paid the ever increasing rents, where are they now? Sitting pretty? Or, more likely are they screwed financially as well? I'd rather pay the banker than the landlord and supposedly there is always bankruptcy court if the lender insists on getting blood out of a turnip. Some would rather pay the landlord----I just don't see it. During the 70s some brave souls bought inflated housing and low and behold that gamble paid handsomely by and large---an actual win for some in the traditional lose/lose government game. The alternative is generally just getting raped by ever higher rent.
Even in hindsight it seems like buying was better than renting assuming of course bankruptcy protection is still available. It is question of gee would I rather be broke paying insane rents or would I rather be broke at least trying to get some security and ownership. Sometimes poverty causes you to make a deal with the devil, but when all is said and done the devil's deal was the best option even if it went BOOM!
My neighbors of 10 years who got booted from their home via foreclosure: They would have been financially stronger if they merely rented? I don't think so! Perhaps some nonsense about stock ownership? A lot of excellent government propaganda about stocks----such a good deal the government had to ban short selling. Tsk. Tsk.
Blame the common man? I gues you could blame him for being so stupid as to believe in the government, but then there many "peso" governments so again just cut the deal with the devil and pray it works out for a win. :)
"We needed regulations earlier, to prevent these sorts of mistakes. What's going on here is that Congress is going to have to bail out the mistakes and poor choices of Wall Street and of our nation's banking leaders, and the CEO's of major financial firms."
Nope, those weren't MISTAKES. They got their money. They unfortunately had to leave major organizations under a cloud of unhappiness, but they got the big checks for sitting in the big corner rooms and for making big decisions which netted them big kickbacks. If those decisions ruined the companies? Or the country? So what. They thought to themselves, not, "What's the right thing to do?" but rather, as any "rational economic actor," they thought to themselves, "So, they gave me these rules and I played the game by the rules they gave me, and I did the best I could under those rules, for myself."
See, Economics ain't so hard.
What was their big financial crime? Well, the husband lost his job at a company that he'd worked for forever and when he finally found a new job it didn't even pay half of the old job. He blamed it on imports . . . who knows if that is correct. He shoulda got a job with the government.
Will the bank seek blood from a turnip? Who knows. Supposedly, in this country there is bankruptcy protection. The law is whatever filth a judge says it is.
The family is flag wavers so maybe down the line there will be some government program that will actually help them.
Wrong bet. She should have just let the government take her savings by inflation. At least she tried to protect herself. And, if she was wealthier the government would print whatever money was necessary to make her whole e.g. Long Term Capital Management.
President Bush, one should remember is an avid proponent of a cheaper dollar (that is being conservative???) as he yelped about how it would make U.S. products cheaper abroad. Absolutely brilliant. Want more sales? Just devalue the currency to the point where foreigners see your dollars as pennies. Sadly, you have learned economists who agree with President Bush's thinking on devalued currency 100%. Anyone remember the reasons President Reagan articuled for why a strong stable dollar was so important?
I hardly remember verbatim, but it just seemed like common sense. You want people to act responsibly one of the first steps should be a responsible currency. Why save and plan for the future if the government is just going to run its printing presses without concern for your savings? That *forces* people to "speculate" for purposes of financial self-defense as well as greed. Blame the government left, right, and center----it is the rule maker and its rules are disgusting.
One Senator pointed out what should be the obvious. The government can credit whatever money is needed directly to beneficiaries or their providers and there isn't any need to raise taxes or cut benefits. The money game has absolutely nothing to do with taking care of the needs of seniors. The Senator pointed out the government could credit every senior entitled to Social Security with a million dollars or more. That isn't a problem---it is a bookkeeping entry and is done electronically. The problem is providing real goods and services for seniors---you need to try and see what seniors will need and then create a plan for delivering needed goods and services. Perhaps you will need a massive influx of young immigrants to physically care for the elderly. Perhaps robots can do the job. Government funding of medical research might be another way of preparing for an elderly population. Perhaps more medical schools will be needed. Money? Not a problem. Money that can buy a certain type of product or service, well that according to the Senator takes planning and preparation.
Of course, the other Senators looked at him like they didn't understand and it got back to the same nonsense about raising taxes or cutting benefits or privatizing.
The downside could be that less will get done legislatively. But that's not necessarily a downside...
Why would Term Limits solve so many problems? Because it would change the calculus of every decision congresspersons make. No matter their intentions, all congress members' jobs have become <b>keeping their jobs</b>. Their jobs should be to serve us as we elected them to do. Term Limits would make congress a service organization, as it should be.
In the past two weeks, Roubini has been lashing out at the Bush administration on his blog. He calls the president, Treasury secretary and Fed chairman 'comrades Bush, Paulson and Bernanke' and brands them as 'laissez faire voodoo-economics zealots.' He says the United States has turned into the 'United Socialist State Republic of America,' bringing 'socialism for the rich, the well-connected and Wall Street' and making sure 'profits are privatized and losses are socialized.'"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…
I read about a $700 billion dollar bailout and a $1 trillion dollar bailout. I could only yawn. And, if it was $10 trillion what is the big deal. A shortage of money? I heard there are some terrorists in the North Pole. Surely, the U.S. government would have NO problems spending trillions of dollars to kill or capture all 11 purported terrorists. I mean that's a bargain. Could be another 911, the worst thing that has ever happened to the U.S. or the entire world.
So, anytime some pea brained politician complains there is NO money just whisper the word terrorist and that should resolve any doubts about a lack of funds right quick.
I'm thinking maybe it is a software programming problem. How difficult can it be to program book keeping entries making everyone solvent? It isn't like the real problem of sending actual physical truckloads of cash to Iraq for goodness sakes. These are just computer credits. For jimmney crickets people get their panties in a bunch over nothing.
I prefer private reward and private risk. Capitalism works; socialism fails. The simplest explanation is that the assumptions behind the former are more consistent with reality.
That is a fine preference. In this private reward and private risk world of yours how many innocent people are you willing to see get destroyed by the ripple effects?
I would also add that it may be even more disastrous not to "socialize" risk depending on the overall needs of the economy. A small note for whatever its worth. Milton Friedman was questioned about saving Chrysler and his opinion was that success of government loans was the real downside----better to see Chrysler die than have the government loans repaid in full. That was one sharp economist, imo---doesn't mean he was right for rooting against the government's rescue plan being successful. Just a little food for thought.
Here is a link that I think might enjoy: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/hea….
Supposedly, conservatives are cowards at birth. Liberals meanwhile embrace the world and aren't afraid to reach out and help their fellow man. So it seems like Obama needs to reach out to conservatives and assure them that they will be safe under his presidency e.g. more police, more defense spending, zero tolerance for violent criminals, blah blah blah.
Again: "In this private reward and private risk world of yours how many innocent people are you willing to see get destroyed by the ripple effects?"
To some extent the fraud was extremely beneficial to the point that with hindsight it would all be worth doing again. The real challenge is how to manage the meltdown so that it doesn't lead to wimpyness for future financial ventures. Of course, wimpyness is exactly the medicine government proposes.
Instead of viewing the financial mess as a mess it seems like this is the perfect time for flag waving and nationalizing unprecedented numbers of businesses because America in No. 1 and your government will protect you! What could be better than we the people owning Wall Street and universal public service?
United We Stand! :)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2…
Of course those that can not face the truth, need not read.
BTW, why doesn't the government bail out failing strip clubs?
Perhaps bailing out the rich would seem more palatable when considering the "private reward" could be identified as "socialized reward." To the extent government at all levels takes from the rich via taxes ostensibly for social good that is one example of how reward isn't merely private. Additionally, think of jobs, products, services, structure, and community provided by the rich and that is another example of how reward isn't merely private.
Seems fairly reasonable under the facts that it is more akin to "socialized rewards and socialized losses." I mean the government takes, takes, takes, maybe when the wealth creators i.e. rich are at serious risk it is time to give a little back; say a few trillion in fiat dollars. :)
I would love a free market system, but that ain't reality and probably never was. :(
Interesting link clubber. However, *you* violated a key commandment: NEVER BLAME GOVERNMENT! It was the market that was to blame; greedy bankers and mortgage brokers and other dirty capitalist types. . . government as usual was 100% innocent of any culpability NO matter what humongous incentives for mass fraud or extreme risk taking it legislated. So, start waving that flag and chant evermore United We Stand! :)
Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. The collapse of the national housing market in the wake of the Great Depression discouraged private lenders from investing in home loans. Fannie Mae was established in order to provide local banks with federal money to finance home mortgages in an attempt to raise levels of home ownership and the availability of affordable housing.
Initially, Fannie Mae operated like a national savings and loan, allowing local banks to charge low interest rates on mortgages for the benefit of the home buyer. This lead to the development of what is now known as the secondary mortgage market. Within the secondary mortgage market, companies such as Fannie Mae are able to borrow money from foreign investors at low interest rates because of the financial support that they receive from the U.S. Government. It is this ability to borrow at low rates that allows Fannie Mae to provide fixed interest rate mortgages with low down payments to home buyers. Fannie Mae makes a profit from the difference between the interest rates homeowners pay and foreign lenders charge.
For the first thirty years following its inception, Fannie Mae held a veritable monopoly over the secondary mortgage market. In 1968, due to fiscal pressures created by the Vietnam War, Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae in order to remove it from the national budget. At this point, Fannie Mae began operating as a GSE, generating profits for stock holders while enjoying the benefits of exemption from taxation and oversight as well as implied government backing. In order to prevent any further monopolization of the market, a second GSE known as Freddie Mac was created in 1970. Currently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac control about 90 percent of the nation's secondary mortgage market." http://hnn.us/articles/1849.html
I'm sure it would if there was either enough social good involved e.g. educating children, spreading religion, building homes, etc. Unfortunately, not only aren't strip clubs seen as providing a social good some government lovers assert that strip clubs harm communities; drugs, STDs, prostitution, violence, misogyny, lowered property values, etc. etc. etc.
Gee, an opinion piece by the likes of Kevin Hassett...a senior economic adviser to the McSame campaign & coauthor of "Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock Market", which was published back in 1999 before the dot-com bubble burst (it was a book that predicted that the Dow Jones industrials index would rise to 36000 within three to five years--i.e., 2002 or 2004). What a surprise that he's absolutely clueless, AND that clubber believes him...LOL!! Too funny...how's that AIG stock doin'??
"yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms"
Hmmmm...was that before or after both he & the Bush Regime pushed ARMs so hard?? Oh yea, it was after...and we'll just ignore the fact that McSame's campaign manager used to lobby for Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac as well...sure, sure...
Government is often an "enabler" by requiring others to do what would not be done otherwise. The SC comment was in jest.
And as usual, facts again stump mg. I will refrain from using MG, as that would be an affront to a fun little car. And yes, "McSame" would be wonderful. What we don't need is more of what we got in 2006! What a joke that congress has been. Again, not Congress, as I do not wish to insult that body.
mg,
About your posts. I know infants that can not read. I know middle-aged illiterates that can not write. Also, I know old fools that can not think straight. Right now, I am trying to guess your age!
The Wall Street Journal wayyyyyyy before the crise was complaining that Democrats were blocking an investigation into these Government Service Entities (Federal National Mortgage Association, nicknamed Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, nicknamed Freddie Mac). Is there any truth to the allegations? I don't know---the system as I understand it mandates sleaziness so it seems like both Democrats and Republicans would have been in on it. Party line votes are often just shows for gullible consumption.
The government in this mess is like the frame and foundation and roof of a home. The foundation is the government's massive body of laws. The frame could be seen as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The roof is oversight and enforcement.
This is a free market? :)
However, Democratic and Republican lawmakers expressed outrage that the administration wants them to sign off on what amounts to the cost of two Iraq wars with less than a week of debate." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PersonalF…
"Senior Democrats on the Hill are worried that Sen. McCain will 'demagogue' the bill, continue to voice opposition to it, use it to run against both Wall Street and Congress as well as to distance himself from the Bush White House. Democrats worry McCain will not only vote against the bill, he will provide cover for other Republicans to do so, leaving Democrats holding the bag for the Bush administration's deeply unpopular proposal.
A Democratic congressional leadership source says that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson went so far as to assure Democratic leaders that McCain 'won't be a problem' -- in other words that McCain will vote for the proposal.
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds says McCain has not made a decision one way or another." http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/…
Less than a week of debate? Sounds more like a rubber stamp than a Congress. So sleazy. :) They've known about this problem for years . . . sorta surprising it is coming so soon before the election. Perhaps they known McCain has a lock on the election and are just trying to clean the slate for him a little.
More irrelevance from an old fool. There are virtually NO facts in that well-debunked opinion piece BTW.
"What we don't need is more of what we got in 2006!"
Right, because the Dems have been in charge of ONE branch of govt. for almost 2 years now...so, when blaming Clinton fails...blame them. That's not going to work either...
About $250 billion a page. Well, actually that is probably just a small taste of what it will cost. Lou Dobbs is going nutso. He is a riot. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO6P_yjKF…
In another video the same guy presents solutions. I'm personally starting to wonder what is the possibility of my brokerage account defaulting if banks and insurance companies go down in a large group in the worst financial disaster we've ever seen. I do like to plan for worst case but this worst case looks bad. I'm thinking our government won't be able to stop a business cycle and things will get bad if not sooner than later. Depression 2010 or 2012 here we come. Studying socionomics if that is the correct name, the call to go to war due to a mass pessimistic mood within a couple of years of the bottom of this downturn probably will happen due to the herd mentality. Whoever is president, Obama, McCain, I don't think it will matter. I'd vote no for this bill but offer some kind of carrot to the markets so it doesn't dive for at least a couple of weeks. I'm hoping it doesn't go down that quickly. Oh well, when you get robbed, it's a sickening feeling. It doesn't make me feel that much better to be robbed with everyone else.
Thanks for the info, Dougster.
I've already wasted to much time on his idiotic rants, so back to strip clubs.
Has anyone ever had a dancer ask for financial advice, needing a place to invest a large sum of money she had acquired from dancing? After talking with her and knowing her for some time, she is one of the few dancers that took an opportunity to make a rather large sum of money without needing much more than a lovely face, body, personality, and an ability to act, and didn't just blow it away..
Oh, so now the housing & financial mess that we're in NOW started pre-1994?? Sure, sure...next thing you'll say that the Romans were to blame clubber...
"those just happen to be the same years that it all started to hit the fan with the 'New Deal'."
What hit the fan?? You mean all those wildy popular & sucessful programs that were started in the New Deal...only the most partisan Right-wing hacks think that a whole lot of bad things came from that era. You're a FOOL clubber...you apparently always have been a fool, and you defintely always will be a fool...
BTW, Dougster/Bobby-boy will always be nothing but a worthless troll...nice friends that you keep there clubber...lol...
No idiot, I didn't say that was what happened. I said, if you COULD read, "What an idiot mg has shown himself to be! He states, "...the Dems have been in charge of ONE branch of govt. for almost 2 years now...". And I replied about the 40 years.
Now as to this particular mess they made, it was done during the clinton years when the dems held ALL THREE branches. IE: before Newt as I stated.
Now, do not read further if you do not wish to read what really caused what is happening now, instead, make up some idiotic stuff as you normally do, and reply to me!
Go read the following:
http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulte…
Then tell me what is inaccurate and then you show me why it is! FACTS, not opinions! Of course I know you won't read it, but rather get back on your soap box and spout the normal liberal BS!
Lastly, I no know one here well enough to call anyone a friend. It is however, easy to tell which are the idiots, including yourself.
Since you will respond, as you did last time, with some bogus BS, I will not bother to post again until you do as I suggested above! Have a wonderful day.
No, it wasn't, and I really don't care what that crazy, blatantly racist, wing-nut has to say about it...what the hell expertise has she ever shown in the area of mortgages & finance?? She's just a Right-wing shill...just like you clubber...utterly useless...
This crisis was caused by a complete lack of regulation & oversight of the whole financial system of the USA (a position championed by the GOP for *decades* now), period. The GOP was in control of Congress for almost 13 years in a row, and in control of the Presidency since 2001...what have they done to stave off this coming disaster?? Absolutely, positively nothing, period end of story.
Now go give up like you always do and crawl back in your hole clubber...
His reply, "...I really don't care what that crazy, blatantly racist, wing-nut has to say about it...".
So there you go, he ADMITS he is not concerned with facts. He relies on the sources that spew BS that he likes, once again proving he is an IDIOT! God that was easy to prove! That said, rant on with your BS, mg, I've proven you are not worth any of my time!
And THAT is the END OF STORY!
Seemed more humorous than factual. The Wall Street Journal did a did a very negative piece on Clinton's plan to help people become homeowners. The article was all up in arms that these borrowers were at a greater risk to default. Jeez, you don't say!
Anyway, at the time I was thinking it was an excellent plan assuming the banks didn't get paid for screwing the poor. Years before this article, I had worked to with Bank Atlantic to get a Veterans Guaranteed loan---I wish I knew the exact details, but supposedly the government guaranteed this loan 100%. The interest rate was nothing special---market rate or thereabout and that was fine. The beauty was the veteran could be low income. Seemed like wonderful way for the government to say the country appreciated your service. I asked the banker what the points would be and he said anywhere from zero to 2 points. The loan just depended on the appraisal. Sounded great. The appraisal and other fees (non-refundable) came to just under $400. The house was a good deal and the appraisal came out higher than the seller had priced it. Fantastic news!!! NO. A huge fraud. I went with my relative to sign the papers and I practically had a heart attack. The sleazy ass bank wanted 8 points. On a $100,000 loan that that is $8,000 off the top. I said what the hell happened to zero to 2 points?! The banker says don't worry you don't have to come up with the money out of your own pocket will just put those points into the loan. Thanks, but NO THANKS. The banker says the fees you paid are non-refundable. I said so? He says you're not just going throw away those hundreds of dollars. I said, listen crook I'd rather my relative lose a few hundred dollars than thousands of dollars. Oh, the banker starts to get angry. I was in his face so quick it wasn't even funny. He was a crook 100% and he backed down real quick.
The government? I don't know if they approved of that filth or not, just as I don't know if the government under President Clinton approved of ARMs for poor people. If President Clinton actually did approve of these ARMs for poor people, then I'd say on that alone that he is a scumbag. Thumbs up trying to help people, but when you're just able to pay the bills the last thing you need in the form of government help is ARMs.
I hope the President Clinton didn't approve of that filth, but I see pretty much non-stop corruption in government so why should he be any different.
McCain standing tall suspends his campaign so that he can deal with this national emergency and act presidential----plus start yapping about the need to protect taxpayers. Now, very conveniently Republicans are making noise about a free market solution that doesn't use any taxpayer money. Just raise a few fees and according to these Republicans problem solved. Meanwhile those nasty Democrats along with President Bush were going to sell out Main Street for Wall Street millionaires and billionaires.
Message: Trust McCain and the Republicans with your economic wellbeing and not cave-in to the rich wheeler dealers. What surprises me is that Democrats seem so willing to trust this administration. This wasn't some ultra secret problem and the Federal Reserve has plenary power to try and fix it. It is just such a massive giveaway that it probably seemed wise to get explicit congressional approval.
There are NO facts in that racist opinion piece you fool.
"He relies on the sources that spew BS that he likes"
LOL...projecting much?? That's what *you* do clubber...you've never posted anything but a Right-wing "source" here, period.
Thanks for giving up so quick clubber...true to form as always...utterly useless...
This would have caused a mild downturn. But other bad government policies have greatly exacerbated the problem. These started with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), adopted during the Carter Administration, but greatly expanded during the Clinton years. CRA regulations demanded that financial institutions provide mortgages to lower income borrowers they thought were too risky, in unstable neighborhoods that they thought exposed their loans to too much risk. Barack Obama's friends at ACORN became major abusers of the CRA, using it to label financial organizations as racist and to block needed regulatory approvals, until ACORN was bought off with money and loans for its favored allies.
This was the beginning of government policies to expand mortgages on easier and easier terms to lower income borrowers, demanding less and less in terms of down payments, documented incomes, and positive credit histories. These practices eventually grew into the subprime mortgage market, where money started to flow even to dubious borrowers with questionable backgrounds.
But it was the federally established and backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that spread the subprime mortgage risk throughout the financial world. Fannie and Freddie issued securities, which the market took as effectively government guaranteed, to raise money to buy mortgages from banks and other financial institutions. They then sold shares in pools of such mortgages to other financial institutions and investors, in America and around the world.
When Fannie and Freddie started selling shares in pools of subprime mortgages, they were spreading serious, unrecognized risk throughout the financial system. With their implicit government guarantee, they were able to borrow huge amounts to fuel an explosion in subprime mortgage lending, and to pump up the housing bubble overall to even greater extremes." http://www.americanprowler.org/dsp_artic…
Blame government 100%, imo.
Senator John McCain was one of three co-sponsors of a 2005 bill to address this budding crisis by establishing strict new regulatory controls over the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill squeaked through the Senate Banking Committee, but Democrats such as Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the Senate, and Barney Frank in the House, unified to kill the bill." http://www.americanprowler.org/dsp_artic…
BTW, I'm not a fan of McCain. But, I believe this wasn't a secret by any stretch of the imagination in that The Wall Street Journal and I'm sure other major publications were yelping about it. The main negative that I saw in my area was ARMs-----and worse the two-bit government was backing these mortgages for people who would be doing very well to meet the loans initial terms. I was assured by people in the business that banks had no intention of doing mass foreclosure, but just wanted to force these poor people to refinance. Well, refinance time came and where were the wonderful banks? Probably on schedule to get paid by the government.
This is just more Right-wing hot air...McSame signed up to be a "co-sponsor" of that bill (to supposively jump on the “reform†bandwagon) *16 months after* the bill in question was introduced...now that’s what I call leadership...bad leadership.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd…
It's sister-bill in the House was soundly denounced by the conservative AEI (for who this Hassett moron works for) as "worse than current law." Both these bills died in Republican-controlled committees.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22…
As for Greenspan...hmmmm...was his "warning" before or after both he & the Bush Regime pushed ARMs so hard?? Oh yea, it was after...and we’ll just ignore the fact that McSame’s campaign manager (who’s doing a great job IMHO, for Obama) used to lobby for Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac as well.
The American Spectator...just another bunch of lying Right-wing hacks...
I did see a funny comic strip. A guy was holding up a sign that said "The End Is Here!" or near or however those signs usually go. Then you see Bernanke and Paulson with dark circles around their eyes looking really scary. The guy with the sign says "Cut it out guys, you're scaring me!"
Thanks for the good links. There is probably some small subset of borrowers that benefit from ARMs. *I* don't mind upfront (i.e. clear timely disclosure of terms) predatory lending against low income consumers IF the government isn't providing liquidity for the loans, backing the loans, and or subsidizing the companies. What is reprehensible in my view is when government assists companies in preying against people. A zero down loan that they may or may not be able to pay isn't preying, imo, because it is probably a better deal than renting and at least it is an attempt to get them some ownership.
Once the government gets in the game providing huge benefits such as liquidity or guarantees it seems like there should be a requirement that the poor aren't treated any worse than the middle class or the rich.
Anyway, the point was the warning bells were ringing years earlier; it wasn't super secret. The government CREATED the foundation and framework for a market that would almost assuredly fail----hardly a free market nor is the U.S economy. If the government will accept any slop that businesses proffer, then that is what it is almost certain to command. You make a $1,000 a month and have NO assets? Sure, a $500,000 home is NO problem because government has already given, by its rules, the thumbs up! When the shit hits the fan blame greedy banker and greedy consumers with the government riding the white horse . . .
When interest rates go up??
"there should be a requirement that the poor aren't treated any worse than the middle class or the rich."
Who do you think was preyed on the most?? The poor and the uninformed...I'm not saying that at least some of them should have know better, but if anyone has ever been through the process of getting a loan (like I have)...then you know that the borrowers will screw you blind if you don't watch them like a hawk.
The U.S. has a mixed economy, which is the most successful type of economy the world over.
When interest rates go up??"
Some borrowers have no intention of staying to the point where interest rates spike; they view an ARM mortgage as ideal because of the upfront savings over a fixed mortgage. Add in some wrinkles in the terms of the ARM and it would be difficult for some relative short term borrowers to want anything but an ARM. The Miami Herald, perhaps 20 years ago, had an excellent tutorial on evaluating the costs of an ARM compared to a fixed rate mortgage.
Depending on the borrower's needs and the initially savings of the ARM even presuming rising interests wouldn't create a deal killer for the savy ARM consumer. It is about very carefully working the numbers.
These banks, at least the ones that I've dealt with seem determined to keep sample contracts secret until the day of the closing. Most people unfortunately aren't in the position to walk at that point. I guess the individual is almost forced to get a lawyer or find a more honest bank.
"Who do you think was preyed on the most??"
The poor; and the problem I have is that the government creates a market for this filth by accepting this paper. If a company isn't using government resources e.g. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc., and there is clear and timely disclosure, then that is one ballgame. This mortgage market is pretty much a government game and thus there needs to be protections for poor people assuming the business wants to play inside the government's market.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7…
You think it is over? That was just round one.
Besides hardly seems like a democracy if the reason for its failure was because Republicans had their feelings hurt by Pelosi's speech. Easy to believe these gentlemen are that shallow.
That amounted to an appalling accusation by Republicans against Republicans, said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the Financial Services Committee: 'Because somebody hurt their feelings, they decide to punish the country.'" http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics…
jablake,
And all along I thought the democrats were the MAJORITY in the House. So somehow the minority stopped a bill??? Seems more likely there are some enlighten democrats that shot the bill down. Amen for them!
Seems it is just a liberal thing that they just can not face facts!
"And all along I thought the democrats were the MAJORITY in the House."
Bi-partisanship (on a GOP bailout plan in the first place) be damned eh?? The deal was to deliver at least half of each caucus in favor of the bailout plan, and the GOP didn't hold up their end of the bargain. Apparently, no one speaks for the GOP House members anymore...not even their own leaders!
Hi Pals,
I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.
Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.
To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.
Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..
So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00.
My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.
Of course, it would NOT be tax free.
So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.
Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.
That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.
But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.
A husband and wife has $595,000.00.
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college - it'll be there
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car - create jobs
Invest in the market - capital drives growth
Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else
Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.
If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed
by one of our candidates for President.
If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!
As for AIG - liquidate it.
Sell off its parts.
Let American General go back to being American General.
Sell off the real estate.
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.
Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."
But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!
How do you spell Economic Boom?
I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC
And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
Kindest personal regards,
Birk
T. J . Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic
PS: Feel free to pass this along to your pals as it's either good for a laugh or a tear or a very sobering thought on how to best use $85 Billion!!
--
When told the reason for Daylight Saving time the old Indian said...
"Only a white man would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket
and sew it to the bottom of a blanket and have a longer blanket."
You are exactly correct! Just like they try and pin the blame on others instead of looking in the mirror!
An old but mostly true and very funny video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VjsomPd3…
TO ALL MY FRIENDS....LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE........FYI only.
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago :
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT!
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS. AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!
JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?
No it doesn't. It equals $425. So much for paying off the mortgage, Birk.
By CHARLES BABINGTON and ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON -- In a bold bid to revive President Bush's multibillion-dollar financial rescue plan, Senate leaders scheduled a vote for Wednesday night on a version of the bill that adds substantial tax cuts meant to appeal to Republicans when it reaches the House. . . .
The new approach, announced Tuesday night by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would tack large and contentious tax measures to the bailout bill. Senate leaders figure the House will have to approve it because the tax cuts are too appealing to Republicans and the financial rescue plan will still seem essential to most Democrats." http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics…
The game ain't over yet.
I feel like there is a global conspiracy among a rich group spread throughout the world to make the US buy up and pay for all the bad investments foreign countries made. They reaped the benefits on their good investments but they want the US taxpayer to pay for their losses. Please tell your senator to vote NO for foreign bank bailouts.
It hits the good old funny bone that the Senate is attempting to bribe recalcitrant Republicans with the lure of TAX CUTS. Even if the bailout occurs would taxpayers be negatively impacted or will the government need to offer more TAX CUTS or tax rebates to put some money in people's pockets? :)
You take enough money out people's pay checks and you can pretty much guarantee a dead economy. Fiscal responsibility ain't necessary such a bright idea depending how responsibility is view. Running monster deficits, for example, may be very responsible compared to other alternatives.
Why?? We now own basically 80% of a company that's worth over a Trillion Dollars...you'd have to be the worst financial guru in *history* to not be able to make money on the AIG deal. The concept of "too big to fail" is completely insane anyways...no company should be allowed to get so big that their failure would bring down an entire industry.
"My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend."
So much for small govt. eh (and check your math there)??
It's nice to see the double standard of when a Dem proposes a tax rebate that it's a "vote buy" and when a Republican does it it's just "good policy".
"Sell off its parts."
That's what's going to happen stupid!
"The first six the economy was fine."
No, it wasn't.
"Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high"
Wow, 2.5 whole years...LOL!!
"Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon"
...and oil was around $30/barrel in 2001...I wonder how much gas was back then, hmmmmm??
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_Prices_M…
"the unemployment rate was 4.5%"
...and it was around 4% (the lowest in over 30 years) back when Clinton left office.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Us_unemploym…
"the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +"
...and what's it doing now after 8 years of "trickle down"??
"Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing"
No, it isn't.
"Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping"
"1% of American homes are in foreclosure"
"THE DOW is probing another low~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS"
...thanks to failed "supply-side", deregulation policies of the GOP.
"THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES"
What a load of baloney...LOL!!!
"No it doesn't. It equals $425. So much for paying off the mortgage, Birk."
That's hilarious!! Way to go scat...not!
LOL! MisterGay thinks that AIG is "worth" the "book value" of its total assets as of Q2 2008.
It's a bit more complicated than that. First of all there are liabilities. Did they ever teach you that in special ed, MG? Second of all, most of the book value of those assets has vanished, or cannot otherwise be liquidated. Don't worry, if the company was really "worth" $1 trillion they would not have needed a bailout.
Join me and stop wasting your time on the idiots of this world. Most, and we've seen proof on one, don't care about FACTS!
Why would you expect a troll to know what they were talking about?? LOL!!
AIG owns International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC), the world's largest aircraft leasing company, with hundreds of aircraft including the full range of Boeing & Airbus jetliners, as well as the McDonnell Douglas MD-11 & MD-80 Series. Total assets are $55 billion. Estimates of its value range from $5-14 billion based on a comparison with rivals.
AIG Investments (through its member company AIG Capital Partners, Inc.) acquired a 90% stake in Bulgarian Telecommunications Company (BTC) from Viva Ventures Holding GmbH and certain minority shareholders. The estimated value of BTC was $2.3 billion.
Really think that ALL of the insurance companies, ports, and even the ski resort in VT that AIG controls are worth nothing?? You'd be wrong of course...
"Don't worry, if the company was really 'worth' $1 trillion they would not have needed a bailout."
Thanks Bobby-boy/Dougster (same, exact troll of course) for showing that you know NOTHING of what the current crisis (that included AIG) is all about, but what else is new eh?? Now go back to your schoolyard rants that no one responds to anymore...
Let's see, so far he got $5-14 billion + 90% * $2.3 billion <= $16.1 billion.
Keep going, MisterGay, you got $984 billion to account for. And no one said the value of AIG was $0. "Most" means "the majority" or "> 50%". Another thing I guess you didn't learn in special ed.
Look math, and anything factual clearly are not your strong suits. (Do you even have a strong suit?) You would do best (though still pathetically bad as that is all you are capable of) by remaining nebulous...
Everything time you to get mathematical or specific we will smack your troll ass back down just like the little bitch that you are.
In the meantime, as Dougster and clubber correctly point out...
MISTERGAY LOSES AGAIN!
Don't waste your time. As I've proven, some do not care about facts, just their liberal BS!
See below:
OK, I put a challenge up for mg to read a column and then, "Then tell me what is inaccurate and then you show me why it is! FACTS, not opinions! Of course I know you won't read it, but rather get back on your soap box and spout the normal liberal BS!"
His reply, "...I really don't care what that crazy, blatantly racist, wing-nut has to say about it...".
So there you go, he ADMITS he is not concerned with facts. He relies on the sources that spew BS that he likes, once again proving he is an IDIOT! God that was easy to prove! That said, rant on with your BS, mg, I've proven you are not worth any of my time!
And THAT is the END OF STORY!
You sticking by those words casualguy? :)
No, I really didn't troll...your point about assets having "vanished" or not otherwise being available to be liquidated was bogus, period end of story.
"Everything time you to get mathematical or specific we will smack your troll ass back down"
Keep dreaming troll...
clubber, you have hardly EVER post any facts here about anything...just links to Right-wing opinion pieces that happen to agree with your warped sense of the world. As is the case for a lot of "conservatives" in this country, facts don't matter to the likes of you...only blind, Right-wing ideology. Because you'd rather yell rather loudly about how you're always giving up, you never have anything useful to add the conversation, period.
Show us the trillion, MisterGay!
BobbyI: "***> most <*** of the book value of those assets has vanished, or cannot otherwise be liquidated."
Exactly why they needed a bailout.
MISTEGAY LOSES AGAIN!
Baloney...now be a good troll and go back under your bridge to nowhere...
Thanks for the info, that REALLY explains everything! The stupid frogs couldn't even keep french as the international language!
I wish we would go over there and bring back all of OUR brave men that are buried there and died for that repulsive country!
As far as disparaging the French, 100% in favor. Without those assholes there probably wouldn't even be a United States of America. Anyone truly opposed to being part of the wonderful United Kingdom? :)
"Even the initial Bush/Paulson numbers - everyone remembers those $700 billion - came out of nowhere. As a US Treasury spokesman told Forbes magazine, 'It's not based on any particular data point ... We just wanted to choose a really large number.'" http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East…
"The bailout ballet was staged to perfection. Representative Marcy Kaptur, Democrat from Ohio, was one of the few to denounce the intimidation tactics and the fearmongering atmosphere on the House floor. Representative Brad Sherman, Democrat from California, warned that martial law would be imposed in the US if the bailout did not pass." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East…
Why do you so often write two or more messages in a row, rather than one? Just curious.
Corrections, interruptions, and just scatter brained. :)
Sounds good. Of course, maybe selling off pieces of it might generate a little cash. Like to get rid of the Louisiana territory also---too much french influence. Of course, I loved getting rid of french fries and french toast, it is just too bad the U.S. government wimped out in the end.
I keep hearing that spain is getting uppity. Getting rid of Florida along with the other former spanish territories seems like a proper rebuke.
A wonderful side benefit of teaching france and spain a lesson is significantly less U.S. territory in need of protection from terrorists.
a) He is an incredible respecter of whores;
b) He is a world class reviewer of whore houses;
c) He is the ultimate short bus rider!
Let's just hope he can find that $1 trillion so he can save some face in this thread. Otherwise... MISTERGAY LOSES AGAIN!
LOL!! Now I'm French because I've been to a bunch of clubs in Quebec?? That's hilarious!!! What a stupid rube you are scat...
"I wish we would go over there and bring back all of OUR brave men that are buried there and died for that repulsive country!"
You've got to be kidding me...let's conviently forget that without France's help (particularily when it came to their navy) that we'd have a real hard time beating the British in our own war of independence...what a old fool you are clubber...
"The French are just a bunch of faggots"
Keep those homophobic rants right on comin' Bobby-boy/Dougster...LOL!!
"I wish we would pack up the Statue Of Liberty and send her packin' back to france!"
Man...and the ignornace just keeps right on comin'...it's utterly amazing...
"Let's just hope he can find that $1 trillion so he can save some face in this thread."
Let me say this again for the reading impaired..."Really think that ALL of the insurance companies, ports, and even the ski resort in VT that AIG controls are worth nothing?? You'd be wrong of course..."
Come on MisterGay: show us the trillion! Otherwise... MISTERGAY LOSES AGAIN!
Packin' up the statue of liberty and sending her back is an OPINION. Has nothing to do with ignorance, even though, I have to admit, you must be an EXPERT on ignorance, and ignoring facts!
More nonsense from an old fool...the term french fries in this country originates with none other than Thomas Jefferson, who was famous for serving French dishes you moron!
"Packin' up the statue of liberty and sending her back is an OPINION"
...a stupid, ignorant position, period end of story. The Statue was a commemorative gift from France on the centennial of the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence! It derives it's appearance from ancient depictions of freedom from slavery, oppression, & tyranny and symbols of enlightenment & knowledge...something that you've failed to accumulate in your many years on Earth clubber!!
You fools in the Right-wing really hardly ever know what it is that you are talking about...sheesh...
Perhaps true (not likely), but you on the left NEVER know what it is that you are talking about!!!
Once again mg, a idiot!
I figured you what be stupid enough to try and explain the obvious, fries and the statue. And I said an opinion, not a "position"! Once again, you ignore the facts. Why am I wasting my time? Just so easy to point out your stupidity, but BORING!!! Have a nice rest of your "life"!
It is "undefensible" to want to get rid of the Statue of Liberty? Look France wasn't with the U.S. which under President Bush's idealogy means they were with the terrorists. Gifts regardless of how nice or garbagy from those supporting terrorists need to be stamped NO THANKS and shipped back or otherwise disposed of, pronto! Besides it is the proper role of government to essentially be in the amusement business? Sell off the Statue of Liberty to investors and let 'em try and make a few dollars in whatever ways might be possible. Sell off pieces. Sell it back to France at an obscene price. Keep it as an amusement park, but make it truly capitalistic unless the capitalists need a government bailout. :)
You know what a white elephant is? It is a waste that just gobbles up precious resources. That pretty much describes the Statute of Liberty and France! :)
I'd never ever heard clubber's position that "the french were a handicap in the American Revolution," but if true a small dose of goodness hardly vindicates the French. Oh, that Jefferson character--The slave owner and capitalist oppressor---a Miami Herald writer compared him to Pol Pot and other murderous scum---dig up his bones and send them to France as well since he was--- among other serious crimes a server of French foods!
I doubt President Bush can stomach French foods and that in a nutshell proves his fitness to lead the United States in that at the very least his stomach knows right from wrong. Even Bin Laden if news reports are accurate can't stomach French foods so even with a top terrorist there are redeeming qualities to be found.
When I speak of mg, what I say may be worth a grain of salt. Sometimes I just say something to listen to his idiotic replies, although, not often. Why would anyone seriously take anything an idiot says, seriously? He has proven time and time again, that trivial details, such as facts, do not concern him, rather the messenger.
I was very much hoping it was a nugget of "revisionist history" that I was unaware of. It did seem like you were just jerking his chain. I enjoyed his response concerning how the Statue of Liberty "was a commemorative gift from France on the centennial of the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence! It derives it's appearance from ancient depictions of freedom from slavery, oppression, & tyranny and symbols of enlightenment & knowledge . . . ." :)
I've read casually that Senator Obama isn't a natural born citizen of the United States and thus in some people's opinion (yes, I've read the Constitution) he isn't eligible to be president. My thought is that despite the clear language to that effect the Supreme Court may say the Fourteenth Amendment negates that provision. Who knows; the Constitution is putty in the hands of justices who have their own superior agenda.
Be a sweet way for Republicans to take the presidency if Senator Obama is the apparent winner. A supposedly conservative court "saving" the country with a patented 5-4 vote giving Senator McCain the White House. Or perhaps a conservative justice doesn't want Republicans to have anything to do with this mess so the vote is 5-4 for Senator Obama.
The country is so corrupt it is easy for me to believe almost anything is possible. Whatever the outcome I think the case would be quite amusing---assuming there is any reasonable basis for concluding that Senator Obama isn't a natural born citizen. I've even casually read some sites that claim he is an illegal immigrant!
I'm very pro-illegal immigrants so instead of being fairly neutral as to who wins the presidency, if Senator is an illegal immigrant damn I feel like send that man a campaign contribution! Might even vote for the first time in over 15 years or more. Yes, for some reason I'm still on the voter rolls----once they gotcha you're got! :(
Strongly preferred McCain's clear vision of the bailout with the emphasis on fixing the immediate problem. Felt queasy when Obama spoke of protecting the taxpayers' pocketbook and keeping the banks from receiving a windfall. Jesus, give the freaking banks some cash if you would like to solve the credit crunch and truly protect the taxpayers. As far as morality beautiful, but save it for a better designed "game" in the future not trying to save milk that is already spilt on the floor so to speak.
Screw Joe the plumber. :) No, not the idea he is supposed to represent. Just the presentation.
McCain kept asserting he isn't President Bush. Damn!
Enjoyed the live gender ratings as the candidates spoke. Generally, I didn't identify with the ladies at all.
Why men don't make it to the ballot box.
By Tony Dokoupil | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Oct 17, 2008
. . .
Another factor: men tend to be loners. They are less likely than women to attend church, consume news, trust authority and believe that people are generally good, according to the University of Michigan's General Social Survey, a semiannual tracking of attitudes and behaviors.
Another factor: education and employment. Graduating from college is one of the top predictors of voting, and increasingly men are falling behind their female counterparts. Over the last half century, male enrollment has dropped below that of women at the undergraduate level, falling from two thirds of the national student body in 1958 to less than half—43 percent—today. Even if men do have the same education as women, they aren't necessarily as likely to hit the polls." http://www.newsweek.com/id/164273/page/2
My neighbor (about 45 years old) will vote for the first time ever thanks to Senator Obama. He is pushing me to vote (NO WAY NO HOW). Claims that McCain will destory the country. I said is that so? I better be voting for McCain, then. LOL! He said old man get serious; that his job is on the line (his employer is hurting bad) and don't be so selfish. What little I've heard from Senator McCain in the last few days concerning the economy I view in a more positive light than what Senator Obama has said on the same subject. My neighbor claims Senator McCain is just a clone of President Bush. Seems like a more intelligent version, imho.
Voting seems like such a negative activity and moreso when the choices seem like the choosing between the lesser of 2 evils. Democracy dies do to lack of participation? I doubt it, but that isn't necessarily bad news. The old Cubans (my age) tell me that the dictator Batista was the greatest and you didn't see Cubans fleeing until the communists took control. Of course, I pointed out that if Batista was so wonderful how did the country fall to the communists? Their answers seemed to focus on greed and fear. Why defend the government when there was so much more money to be working for yourself or an employer. Also, who wants to get shot at when you can just pay some poor person to do the dirty work and risk his life or health. Too bad the dictator Batista couldn't have taken Florida and created a New Cuba. Well, at least we got some of the Cubans. :)
Eight leading foreign newspapers conducted a poll that finds overwhelming support for Sen. Barack Obama in the United States presidential election. He would win by a landslide in every country surveyed.
Canada: Obama 70%, McCain 14%
France: Obama 68%, McCain 5%
Switzerland: Obama 83%, McCain 7%
Poland: Obama 43%, McCain 26%
Japan: Obama 61%, McCain 13%
Mexico: Obama 46%, McCain 13%
Great Britain: Obama 64%, McCain 15%
Belgium: Obama 62%, McCain 8%
The poll also shows that America 'can no longer count on the friendship even of its closest neighbours and allies after eight years of the Bush presidency. Only a minority in the countries surveyed describe relations with the US as friendly.'" http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/1…
"People around the world are pinning their hopes on Barack Obama in next month's presidential election, according to an international survey published today. It shows that America can no longer count on the friendship even of its closest neighbours and allies after eight years of the Bush presidency. Only a minority in the countries surveyed describe relations with the US as friendly." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct…
Sort of interesting how even formerly friendly countries view the U.S. All the goodwill after 911? Gone and fast and rightly so. But, more importantly war profiteers are happy along with President Bush's oil men.
Who will best represent America to the world? Most probably that smooth talking Senator Obama.
Although I don't care even 2 cents who wins the presidency, it would be sort of amusing to see a man elected who Gov. Palin asserts pals around with terrorists. Well, if Thomas Jefferson can reasonably be compared to Pol Pot, then Senator and terrorist supporter Obama is in good company.
MISTERGAY LOSES AGAIN!
MISTERGAY LOSES AGAIN!