|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
In article ,
"K. Gringioni" wrote: On Mar 2, 6:41*pm, Howard Kveck wrote: In article , *"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote: Should the government own 80% of AIG, or should it have let it fail? * *Since it is *so* tied into the world-wide economy, it became something that can't be allowed to fail (and I believe that no entity should ever be allowed to "get so big it can't be allowed to fail"). However, the fact that they were doing business with the big banks of so many countries that makes me think that the governments of those other countries need to pony up also. The only problem is: it's our fault. Phil Gramm started the ball rolling with the "Commodities Futures Modernization Act". Google it. Then Greenspan compounded the error by letting the post 9/11 easy money policy go on for 2 or 3 years too long. Because of the ways the derviatives spread risk, we spread the contagion to all the other large financial institutions in the world. It's a ****ing mess. There was a reason that those types of financial instruments were outlawed after 1929. Thank you very much Phil Gramm. ****ing asshole. Phil Gramm, who went on to be on the board of UBS, that ate **** big time via the very things that Gramm helped create. Anyway, yeah, I agree with you that it was the fault of the US for creating the environment where those instruments took over. But the banks of other countries (a notable exception: Canada) bought into the system, even though they were warned not to by people in the position to know (people internal to the banks), just like here. AIG was just the company that insured those financial instruments, and all over the world. Globalization has its faults - this is one of them. By the way, I read an article this weekend that talked about how the FBI was warning about mortgage fraud pretty early in the mess but the warnings were ignored and the guys working on that were generally shifted to counterterrorism (which probably means spending time running down the **** "leads" that were tortured out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed). What was interesting was that the focus of their allegations was not fraud by borrowers, as the wingnuts want us to believe, but fraud on the part of mortgage brokers and lenders. I'll see if I can round it up out my history. -- tanx, Howard Caught playing safe It's a bored game remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
On Mar 2, 8:00*pm, "Paul G." wrote:
On Mar 2, 5:32*pm, Scott wrote: On Mar 2, 12:40*pm, "Paul G." wrote: On Mar 2, 11:00*am, Bill C wrote: *When they are insisting that Congressmen have to vote to pass this without even giving them the time to read the thousands of pages, "trust us", then that's beyond ****ed up, but hey if it works for you folks. Practical consideration- how long do you figure it would take all 500+ members of Congress to read those thousands of pages? *What would happen in the meantime? -Paul How long did it take Pelosi and crew to write those 1000+ pages? Perhaps I'm naive, but if a bill is too long to be read in it's entirety, it's too long to vote on (for or against). Oh, as to what would happen in the meantime, we might not have lost another 15% in the market. *Doing nothing is often a bad thing, but doing the wrong thing is always a bad thing. *Sometimes nothing is better. How many times did you vote for Bush? -Paul- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What's your point? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
On Mar 2, 8:55*pm, "K. Gringioni" wrote:
On Mar 2, 5:32*pm, Scott wrote: On Mar 2, 12:40*pm, "Paul G." wrote: On Mar 2, 11:00*am, Bill C wrote: *When they are insisting that Congressmen have to vote to pass this without even giving them the time to read the thousands of pages, "trust us", then that's beyond ****ed up, but hey if it works for you folks. Practical consideration- how long do you figure it would take all 500+ members of Congress to read those thousands of pages? *What would happen in the meantime? -Paul How long did it take Pelosi and crew to write those 1000+ pages? Perhaps I'm naive, but if a bill is too long to be read in it's entirety, it's too long to vote on (for or against). Dumbass - Believe it or not, nearly all bills are too long for the congressmen to read. As for doing nothing: read what Warren Buffet said in the article in the first post of this thread. There were times when doing nothing was better, such as the Clinton/ Gingrich years. This is not one of those times. thanks, K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not according to the CBO's assessment. Nothing would've been better than the Obama/Pelosi spending bill. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
Howard Kveck wrote:
Think about it this way: all that the Republicans and conservatives have right now are Rush Limbaugh (a drug adict sex tourist), Not-Joe the Not-Plumber and some 14 year old kid who "spoke" at CPAC this weekend. Haha! And someone who sees Russia from her front porch while barbecuing a moose. Didn't there used to be some (intentionally ?) surrealistic tv sitcom about a town in Alaska ? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
thefronny wrote:
5339 Of course, I don't know anymore than the next person but remember, this *is* the nation that RE-elected George Bush. Besides, somebody has to get the cluster **** started. Are we having a pool ? Winner gets 1 (one) AIG share. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:05:59 -0800 (PST), Scott
wrote: On Mar 2, 8:00*pm, "Paul G." wrote: On Mar 2, 5:32*pm, Scott wrote: On Mar 2, 12:40*pm, "Paul G." wrote: On Mar 2, 11:00*am, Bill C wrote: *When they are insisting that Congressmen have to vote to pass this without even giving them the time to read the thousands of pages, "trust us", then that's beyond ****ed up, but hey if it works for you folks. Practical consideration- how long do you figure it would take all 500+ members of Congress to read those thousands of pages? *What would happen in the meantime? -Paul How long did it take Pelosi and crew to write those 1000+ pages? Perhaps I'm naive, but if a bill is too long to be read in it's entirety, it's too long to vote on (for or against). Oh, as to what would happen in the meantime, we might not have lost another 15% in the market. *Doing nothing is often a bad thing, but doing the wrong thing is always a bad thing. *Sometimes nothing is better. How many times did you vote for Bush? -Paul- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What's your point? That no one should take you seriously. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:07:15 -0800 (PST), Scott
wrote: On Mar 2, 8:55*pm, "K. Gringioni" wrote: On Mar 2, 5:32*pm, Scott wrote: On Mar 2, 12:40*pm, "Paul G." wrote: On Mar 2, 11:00*am, Bill C wrote: *When they are insisting that Congressmen have to vote to pass this without even giving them the time to read the thousands of pages, "trust us", then that's beyond ****ed up, but hey if it works for you folks. Practical consideration- how long do you figure it would take all 500+ members of Congress to read those thousands of pages? *What would happen in the meantime? -Paul How long did it take Pelosi and crew to write those 1000+ pages? Perhaps I'm naive, but if a bill is too long to be read in it's entirety, it's too long to vote on (for or against). Dumbass - Believe it or not, nearly all bills are too long for the congressmen to read. As for doing nothing: read what Warren Buffet said in the article in the first post of this thread. There were times when doing nothing was better, such as the Clinton/ Gingrich years. This is not one of those times. thanks, K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not according to the CBO's assessment. Nothing would've been better than the Obama/Pelosi spending bill. What? Now you're just making stuff up. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:06:59 -0800 (PST), Bill C
wrote: Couple of weeks, maybe a month. In the meantime contain the fires as best as possible, make the case that we are going to go into this with a plan, the best possible advice, solid controls we haven't had in the past, etc... Take a little bit of time to make sure all the ducks are at least in a gaggle where you can line them up, and it looks like a plan, not a kneejerk panic reaction. Seriously, we do all know that it is the congressional staffs that actually read the budget and most of that is based on precis (pl?) provided? Some of the senate staffs have the resources to tear apart a lot of a bill in a very short period of time. I've been in a couple of break down sessions back when I was more active with non-profits in DC. It would be ten or so of us and we would be handed our pages to go through. You scan your stuff, redline the stuff that looks important or dicey and then go over it again, while the senior people look at the redlined stuff. You can get through a lot in a night. The senior guys had access to the congressional staffs as well. Anything that gored one of our oxen got called in. The process can cover a lot of ground. Of course, the people with access were the people that supported that congressperson's point of view, so it wasn't exactly bipartisan input that they got. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels... |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:05:38 -0800 (PST), "K. Gringioni"
wrote: Luckily for us, our guy whom you mention never managed to get into a mess of that magntude. Not for a lack of trying. Not to mention lives saved in winter by invading countries closer to the equator. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels... |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
On Mar 3, 2:47*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote: On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:05:59 -0800 (PST), Scott wrote: On Mar 2, 8:00*pm, "Paul G." wrote: On Mar 2, 5:32*pm, Scott wrote: On Mar 2, 12:40*pm, "Paul G." wrote: On Mar 2, 11:00*am, Bill C wrote: *When they are insisting that Congressmen have to vote to pass this without even giving them the time to read the thousands of pages, "trust us", then that's beyond ****ed up, but hey if it works for you folks. Practical consideration- how long do you figure it would take all 500+ members of Congress to read those thousands of pages? *What would happen in the meantime? -Paul How long did it take Pelosi and crew to write those 1000+ pages? Perhaps I'm naive, but if a bill is too long to be read in it's entirety, it's too long to vote on (for or against). Oh, as to what would happen in the meantime, we might not have lost another 15% in the market. *Doing nothing is often a bad thing, but doing the wrong thing is always a bad thing. *Sometimes nothing is better. How many times did you vote for Bush? -Paul- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What's your point? That no one should take you seriously.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - We're not talking about President Bush here, so your reference to him is useless. We're not even talking about ANY republican alternative to President Obama. We're talking about the current president, the "stimulus" bill and the state of the economy. You hate President Bush, we all get that. But let's try to stay on point. Here's something serious for you to consider. Check the level of the market the day before the election, the day of the inauguration, the day the House released their initial version of the spending bill, the day the House republicans voted against it, the day those three miserable Senate republicans voted to prevent further debate, and the day the spending bill was signed into law. Check the level the day they announced another 4+ bil dollar pork bill laden with 9000 earmarks, and then you tell us what's driving the market down. The pattern is pretty clear. When it looked like there may be some serious debate on a STIMULUS bill the market was stable, or even a little up. It's been on a significant spiral ever since it was clear there was no stimulus but lots of spending. The markets have spoken: Obama/Pelosi spending bill is NOT going to stimulate anything other than big govt and big debt. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BBC documentary exposes the Zionist jew conspiracy and the NeoCon war mongering - using our countries to carry out Israel's dirty work. Australia needs to stop supporting these racist terrorists, Israel. | Midex | Australia | 0 | May 6th 07 03:52 PM |
Why I dont stop at red lights or stop signs | Tom Keats | Social Issues | 5 | August 4th 04 07:55 AM |
Why I dont stop at red lights or stop signs | Pete | Racing | 1 | August 3rd 04 06:13 AM |
Aren't bicycles suposed to stop at stop signs? | Ken | General | 85 | September 22nd 03 11:22 PM |
The Fear | dannyfrankszzz | UK | 33 | August 29th 03 09:47 AM |