What conditions with the 700 billion dollar bailout

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:28 am

I was doing my homework. I watched Obama being interviewed this morning. Obama isn't worried about the cost effecting any of his new spending proposal, so why should I worry.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16195
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL


Postby Pacific Fisher » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:35 am

You did not do your homework, you displayed dangerous ignorance in your willingness to support the draft bailout proposal without sound safeguards for the American Taxpayer's 700 billion dollars.

I will post Paulson's statement to further demonstrate how reckless and inaccurate your position was in your first post in this thread.

And speaking of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, American taxpayers should be very wary as he was the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, one of the companies that will benefit most from his proposed bailout.
He will likely be returning to the private sector and he along with his other Wall Street CEO's would have been delighted if Congress supported like you were willing spinnerman, a simple proposal without adequate safeguards for the taxpayer's 700 billion dollars and fat bonuses for those fat cat CEO rats jumping their sinking companies.
Last edited by Pacific Fisher on Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby DuckinFool » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:46 am

SpinnerMan wrote:I was doing my homework. I watched Obama being interviewed this morning. Obama isn't worried about the cost effecting any of his new spending proposal, so why should I worry.


I am sure Obama is not worried. His mentors in the corrupt Chicago Political Machine have him trained well. You don't cutbck the spending you raise taxes and increase "fees" to fund your pet projects.

Anybody who thinks they are realistically getting any type of taxbreak from a Chicago politician is delusional. Especially one who has never voted for a taxcut or tax freeze in his life anfd will have a tax and spend Congress to back him.
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois

Postby Pacific Fisher » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:53 am

DuckinFool wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:I was doing my homework. I watched Obama being interviewed this morning. Obama isn't worried about the cost effecting any of his new spending proposal, so why should I worry.


I am sure Obama is not worried. His mentors in the corrupt Chicago Political Machine have him trained well. You don't cutbck the spending you raise taxes and increase "fees" to fund your pet projects.

Anybody who thinks they are realistically getting any type of taxbreak from a Chicago politician is delusional. Especially one who has never voted for a taxcut or tax freeze in his life anfd will have a tax and spend Congress to back him.


The above is your homework on the 700 billion American Taxpayer dollar bailout bill?
C.B.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby DuckinFool » Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:18 am

America Beyond The Point Of No Return

By Doug Patton

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." - George Bernard Shaw

A half century ago, Russian-born writer Ayn Rand warned about the creeping socialism she saw in America even then. In her thousand-page tome, "Atlas Shrugged," Rand told the story of John Galt, a shadowy figure who is so fed up with high taxes, burdensome regulations and interference from government, he secretly recruits the best and brightest of American capitalism - the captains of industry - to withdraw from society to the mountains of Colorado, leaving the growing welfare state without any visible means of support.

Imagine what Ayn Rand would say about the federal government coughing up quantities of cash even career bureaucrats didn't talk about in the 1950s; all to bail out quasi-government entities whose overseers were complicit in the failures of those very institutions.

Republicans and Democrats alike share the blame for this mess. It was largely created out of a misguided need (mostly by Democrats) to feel as though America was actually doing something to help the poor own their own homes. This may be a worthwhile goal, but when people who have absolutely no hope of paying back loans are approved to buy a home, one has to ask, "Who is going to pick up the tab for all this?" Answer: You are, to the tune of at least a trillion dollars, a sum most of us cannot even fathom.

Over the last decade, Democrats like U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-CN, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, have insisted that these ridiculous loans be made. Former Attorney General Janet Reno, carrying out the wishes of her boss, threatened legal action against any institution that discriminated or "redlined." I was very disappointed to hear John McCain say on CBS's "60 Minutes" that he admired New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and would consider him to head up the Securities and Exchange Commission. As Bill Clinton's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Cuomo was up to his eyeballs pushing the sub-prime mortgages that started these dominoes tipping in the first place.

And where were Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in the 1990s when Clinton and his cronies were building this house of cards? The GOP held the House and the Senate during most of Clinton's tenure. After 2000, they also held the White House. Why did this situation continue?

The rule in Washington seems to be this: If you squander your money and fail to provide for yourself, the government will take care of you. If you save, invest wisely and prepare for your retirement, you will be penalized in order to pay for those who did not. A perfect example was the tax increase passed by Clinton and the Democrats who still controlled Congress during the first two years of his administration. Seniors who had saved and invested for retirement, and who made more than $34,000 ($44,000 per couple) received a tax increase under that plan.

The frightening thing about the trillion dollar bailout is that everyone seems so willing to go along with it. It is as though we have finally accepted the idea that government is the one entity that has the resources to pull off such a plan. Well, guess what. Government doesn't have a nickel. Government is in the hole to the tune of ten trillion dollars. (Put that number in your pipe and fathom it!) But government has two things no one else has. Government has the power to print money and the power to raise taxes.

Alternatives may yet see the light of day in Congress. Perhaps in this hour of crisis, our representatives will see that the private sector could probably pull itself out of this with some very favorable tax policy. At least try repealing the capital gains tax to see if private firms wouldn't consider buying up these companies.

Or better yet, how about the Fair Tax, so that the billions in offshore accounts can come flooding back into the economy without fear of being sacked by the feds?

Those who for years have predicted America's slide into the cesspool of collectivism have been vindicated by the taxpayer-financed bailout of the mortgage and insurance industry. In essence and in fact, the United States government has nationalized these industries. Hugo Chavez no doubt is amused.

---

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.

--------------------
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois

Postby Pacific Fisher » Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:32 am

John Galt, where are you? :smile:

FYI,
The national debt limit will be raised from the 10 trillion cited in your article, to 11.2 trillion under the bailout plan.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:56 am

Pacific Fisher wrote:I will post Paulson's statement to further demonstrate how reckless and inaccurate your position was in your first post in this thread.
Could you please articulate my position for me? I'm not sure what my position is. This is a very complicated issue and I don't believe I have taken any position. I've made a few general comments on it.

Goal: Settle financial markets.

Success: It seemed to have done this and then it seemed in trouble which seemed to destabilize the markets.

A commission to study it is just political B.S. to kick the can down the road.

Congressional oversight: Absolutely nothing gets done by committee. That's why the military doesn't have committees run wars, at least not successful ones. You put one guy in charge and it's his neck on the line. He doesn't get it done. You fire him and try again. That's the only way it works. If you have a committee and it doesn't get the job done, nobody gets fired. If the Congressional Committee is barred from running for reelection if they fail, then I'll support Congressional control. Otherwise they will just get in the way.

Congress can drag the Treasury Secretary into committee meetings and grill him pretty much as they see fit. This won't change and they will be able to grill him and his subordinates as much as they want.

Back to some of my original quotes
SpinnerMan wrote:I don't follow all or even many of the details and know for damn sure Obama has no clue what's going on. ... Not saying McCain is any better on this one.

SpinnerMan wrote:Bush has guided us through a number of financial crises in his term. I have confidence that he can get us through this one, but it's an election year so the Democrats are going to do everything in their power to maximize political advantage and the economy be damned.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16195
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby DuckinFool » Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:01 pm

Is anybody asking what happens if this trillion plus dollar bailout does not work and the economy does not bounce back?

What will be the amount of the next handout? Rest assured this is not going to be the last time the taxpayer has another bailout heaped onto their backs.

I have the feeling the credit card lenders will be next to stick their hands out.
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois

Postby Pacific Fisher » Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:15 pm

In an ultimate display of arrogance and ignorance you posted,

"No one will ever help you with your ignorance. Go do the research, there are a lot of strings attached."

You either had not done your own homework, or you are fiscally reckless in implying that there were "a lot of strings attached" to protect the American taxpayer's 700 billion dollars.
Spin it all you want.
C.B.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby brownlou » Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:37 pm

I found this to be an interesting read from the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1221866 ... lenews_wsj

I guess our government has to step in from time to time. Wasn't Charles Keating involved in the Savings and Loan Crisis? Wasn't he a good buddy of John Mccain?

I have no real say in the terms. I just hope they look at all the angles. I hope they stop the big fat bonuses.
brownlou
hunter
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:09 pm

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:56 pm

My original post.

SpinnerMan wrote:No one will ever help you with your ignorance. Go do the research, there are a lot of strings attached. We will probably lose money on the deal, but we could actually make a profit. I'm sure you didn't realize that.

How much is it worth to stabilize the financial markets? It seems to have done that or at least settled them down.

If you were actually serious, I would go track down the articles for you, but you have no clue what we should have done other than if a Republican does it it's wrong and if the Democrats do it that it is perfect by definition. Who cares if it actually achieves the stated goal. How's that war on poverty going? We're still waiting for some success on that front :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


I think everything has proven my original statement true.

You have listed a few petty things you want added that will have no impact on stabilizing the financial markets. That is the goal and the only reason we are doing anything.

If we let these companies fall flat on their face, which is what the deserve, the damage will be unnecessary large. The shareholders have already lost a ton of money and they will not save a large fraction of their initial investments as a result of this "bailout." The goal is to build confidence in the financial markets and most of what the Democrats are demand will not help the financial markets. They are simply handouts that subsidize bad behavior. The bailout does that as well, but it has a clear purpose as long as we don't lose focus.

It's sort of like helping people that live in a hurricane zone after they are hit by a hurricane. They should have taken precautions and should bare the consequences, but that will have ripples through the economy. The problem is we never change things for the next hurricane. That is my big concern on this current crisis. Are we going to make things better or worse for the next financial crisis? Not whether or not the Bush Administration can minimize the damage in the short term. They have a proven record of handling financial termoil whether it was the bursting of the remnants of the internet bubble, the accounting scandals, 9/11, or the current housing bubble. My concern is what stupid things will be attached to legislation that havs nothing to do with stabilizing financial markets or reducing the likelihood and/or consequences of future housing bubbles.


brownlou wrote:I have no real say in the terms. I just hope they look at all the angles. I hope they stop the big fat bonuses.
No more signing bonus for professional athletes? I see this very much like professional athletes. There are very few people that can even do these jobs and many of the ones that look incredibly promising turn out to be flops or are just a flash in the pan. Those that do work out are worth 10 times what they make and those that aren't cost the team a 100 times or more what they were paid. It's a high risk and high reward business. The best CEOs can command these salaries because they are worth it. The worst ones destroy the company.

If you are proposing that contracts should not be honored, you are enterring very dangerous territory. Which contracts can be disregarded and who gets to decide?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16195
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby brownlou » Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:13 pm

Oh, my bad. I didn't realize that a government bailout was part of their contracts. If it is not, then all bets should be off.

Interesting that you would use a sports analogy. I believe professional sports is another corrupt industry. I am all for taking sports out of our school systems. They can keep the money from my property taxes for it ...just make the schools better.
brownlou
hunter
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:09 pm

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:36 pm

My point about the contracts is that they should be honored. You don't expect the government to arbitrarily throw out union contracts or any of the other contracts in place. My other point, this is completely insigificant in regards to stabilizing the financial markets.

Now, if anyone committed a crime, then :hammer: I'm fairly certain there were many crimes committed in this mess and every one of them that is prosecutable should be prosecuted. However, if there is insufficient proof, then they are presumed innocent from a legal perspective and the contracts should be honored. We cannot punish people for crimes we think they committed.

Of topic, but professional sports and high school sports are too different things. One is a business focussed on making money and boosting the egos of the egomaniac owners and they can do whatever they want. The other is an extracurricular activity that should enhance and not harm the educational process.

There are many students that benefit from extracurricular activities, when they are kept in perspective. I agree many schools lose perspective and this typical involves committing crimes such as redshirting and recruiting. When kept in perspective, there are a lot of kids that can be motivated to do well at school and keeps them out of trouble outside of school. I saw this first hand. My high school had a tradition of a successful football team (~30 years with a single losing season). The long-time coach got in a fight with a school board member and he ended up taking a job coaching at college instead of putting up with the nonsense from the school board. The new coach sucked!!! My last 3 years of high school our team won a total of 4 games. We had a number of very talented, but misguided yutes on the team. I remember 2 in particular that ended up quitting and I believe both ended up in juvenile hall instead of getting a college education. Extracurricular activities are an important part of schools, especially when there are a lot of kids that don't have appropriate parental upbringing. It helps motivate them to get grades and stay out of trouble. Assuming it is kept in perspetive. If not, well we all know examples of that.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16195
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby Pacific Fisher » Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:08 pm

spinnerman spun,

"I think everything has proven my original statement true. "

Nice self congratulatory pat on the back, but the fact remains you stated that "plenty of strings" were attached to the original bailout proposal and that is simply not true.
It will still be risky with negotiated protections and oversight. Without them it would be recklessly irresponsible.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:17 pm

There are strings. It is not a handout. They have to make payments. If they can't make payments, they have to sell of assets. The government took ownership of a large fraction of the company.

Protection and oversight of what? All your plan will do is prevent success because the people responsible for the oversight will not be accountable to anyone. They will sit in their safe legislative seats and demand concesions that benefit their donors. Nothing will get done quickly which is the only way we can stabilize quickly. I firmly believe it is a critical part of the Democrats political campaign to ensure that nothing happens before November 5th.

Then their objections will suddenly evaporate because they know their voters have a short attention span. Remember how Obama was going to fight the telecom bill tooth and nail and then voted for it. I'll bet you are one of the few Dems that does.

The Republicans benefit if the financial crisis is solved quickly. The Democrats benefit if it drags out. Politicians always act in their personal interest. So who do you trust? Why?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16195
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby Pacific Fisher » Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:59 pm

Reports from politician's of both parties are saying calls are pouring in from constituents 100 to one (and in some cases not even one) against the bailout package lay-ed out by Paulson.

If a bailout package goes forward allowing extreme salaries and golden parachute million dollar bonuses to the bailed companies execs, and folks in large numbers lose their houses, there will be marches on Washington DC by Republican and Democrat voting citizens.

Newt Gingrich is telling McCain to not support it and McCain is indeed waffling on supporting it.

A number of Republican lawmakers came out of a private meeting with president Bush and Vice President Cheney unconvinced to support the Paulson Bailout Bill.

It is going to get interestinger and interestinger.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:30 am

We are definitely losing focus of the goal which is to stabilize the financial markets and get credit flowing more smoothly again.

I'm glad to see you are a big Newt Gingrich fan like I am. I lived in his district for a number of years and voted for him a couple times. I would actually like to hear what he said because he definitely stays focussed on the goal and doesn't propose feel good B.S.

I've learned a little more about the issue.

The Treasury Secretary wants authority to buy up these stupid mortgage backed securities that they contend are gumming up the works. This is where the industry bundled a bunch of mortgages and traded them as a security. After the housing bubble burst, the value of these securities is very uncertain and basically nobody is will to buy them any longer. Some companies own so many of them, they are going bankrupt because they cannot sell these to pay bills. Other companies are in less trouble, but cannot raise cash to issue new loans. Some companies are even doing fine inspite of owning these. The idea is that the Federal government will buy up a bunch of these, which will put cash into the system. They will hold them for awhile until the wreckage from the bursting of the housing bubble has worked it's way through the system. At this point, the real value of these securities should be known. Right now, the real value is unknown. At that point, the government will sell them off. Depending on the ultimate value of these securities will determine how much the taxpayers lost or made on resolving this problem.

Is this a good idea? I'm with Harry Reid on this one and have no clue. All the people I trust, except apparently Newt, are saying this is the right thing to do.

Oversight - I was basically wrong. They don't want any authority in making the decisions. They just want more reports. This is what Paulson said was a draft and a negotiation point. He'll give them more reports if they want. They can see everything as I said. It's a meaningless debate. However reports aren't cheap, so too many report is just a waste of tax payer money. Too few keeps Congress uninformed.

Executive Compensation - Basically, the Dems want every executive that sells these securities to the government to forfeit their bonuses. Why would they sell them if it will cost them money? Many of the companies that hold these things are not failing. Some are even doing well. The whole idea is to get these out of the way and let the markets begin to function normally again. This would be a big impedement to encouraging the companies to take the cash and not simply hunker down and ride out the crisis.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16195
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby SouthernSprig » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:26 am

its not like there just going to be like ok well here is 700 billion dollars and fix our economy. The money ahs to come from somewhere and those of us who are in the younger generation are going to be paying for it as well as our kids and our grand kids. Not to mention the fact that the value of the dollar will drop even more! Democrat...Republican...the only word you need to say is POLITICIAN...we elect them into off just to make mistakes. Yeah i am a republican but we cant to back in the past and we DAMN sure cant elect someone who wont make ALOT of mistakes!
SouthernSprig
Newb
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:07 pm

Postby DuckinFool » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:07 am

Welcome to the new Socialist Republic of the United States.
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois

Postby Pacific Fisher » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:17 am

Good post spinner.

Concerning oversight powers, I suspect if the details and guidlines of the package are clear enough, lawmakers may have some comfort.
I think it is naive to think that any Treasury Secretary would be given the power that was stated in Section 8 of the initial package that Paulson put forth. You have to hand it to him for boldness though.

Of real importance and also very difficult is placing a value on the paper. Too high a price may not be a good deal for the taxpayers, too low a price and lending money may still be scarce.
I agree that the taxpayers could and should make money on this, if and it is a very big if, this is enough to stop the chain reaction in the markets.

The issue of limiting CEO salaries and bonuses, is one that is strongly supported by both Democrats and Republicans and overwhelmingly by their constituents. I do not think at this point that either party considers this negotiable, except for the allowed income amount.
If the CEO decides it is not worth it for him to take a hit in his salary/bonus package as part of receiving taxpayer funds, no one is going to force him except his Board of Directors, depending on the structure of the company.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:36 am

This is not socialism. Not as conceived. This isn't like proposals to permanently nationalize health care, new drug benefits, social security, etc.

Now what must happen is legislation making this temporary. Limit the time frame overwhich these securities can be purchased, maybe 2 years. Set a time frame overwhich the government must have completely sold all they purchased, maybe 5 years.

We need legislation addressing these securities so we don't produce more of these things that are so complicated that even the "experts" cannot put a price on them.

We need legislation that reduces the likelihood of a housing bubble. No encouragement for making bad loans to "the right people." Break Fannie & Freddie into pieces and turn them into 100% private companies that are not "too big to fail."

BTW, I heard Newt being interviewed. If I followed his concerns, it was basically that government will screw it up and it's too much money.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16195
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby pennsyltucky » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:42 am

SpinnerMan wrote:BTW, I heard Newt being interviewed. If I followed his concerns, it was basically that government will screw it up and it's too much money.
i think you could apply this quote to every government policy to date :biggrin:
muleskinner wrote:you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a benalli in the other.
User avatar
pennsyltucky
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: stoneboro, PA

Postby DuckinFool » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:48 pm

brownlou wrote:I found this to be an interesting read from the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1221866 ... lenews_wsj

I guess our government has to step in from time to time. Wasn't Charles Keating involved in the Savings and Loan Crisis? Wasn't he a good buddy of John Mccain?

I have no real say in the terms. I just hope they look at all the angles. I hope they stop the big fat bonuses.


Do we really want to get into a discussion of the candidates "buddies" and what they are involved in? :biggrin:
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois

Postby mattm25tx » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:10 pm

[quote="pennsyltucky"] and it has nothing to do with the retarded individuals who took out the 500K mortgages on a 200K house with a 50K job. [/quote/]


There is the biggest part of the problem with our economy, Idiots that buy houses they cant afford or buy a house that maxes their budget on just the morgage. Then they all want to drive BMWs and Mercades and drive $250k boats and pull them around with $60k trucks with $20k in lifts wheels tires that get 10mpg on $4-$5 per gallon Fuel. All the big houses and toys are fine if you can afford it.
It all has to do with everyones drive to keep up with their the guy next door, and this country is filled with the $30k/ yr millionaires.

I see this on a daily basis being in the boating industry.
Matts Mobile Marine Service

If your not living life on the edge you are taking up too much room
mattm25tx
hunter
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:36 pm
Location: Fate,tx

Postby don taylor » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:39 am

DuckinFool wrote:
brownlou wrote:I found this to be an interesting read from the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1221866 ... lenews_wsj

I guess our government has to step in from time to time. Wasn't Charles Keating involved in the Savings and Loan Crisis? Wasn't he a good buddy of John Mccain?

I have no real say in the terms. I just hope they look at all the angles. I hope they stop the big fat bonuses.


Do we really want to get into a discussion of the candidates "buddies" and what they are involved in? :biggrin:


Doesn't Obama have 2 or 3 executives from Lehman(sp?), Fannie and Freddie as his top economic advisors? Guess who got huge donations, second biggest in the senate, behind C.Dodd, from them?
BIGGER WATER DECOYS

Chairman- The Allegheny Chapter of Delta Waterfowl.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/4277478 ... 6859634909
User avatar
don taylor
Forum & State Moderator
 
Posts: 7534
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:38 pm
Location: Westmoreland County, Pa.

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests