O/T: The Bail Out

On Sep 29, 2:22=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jimbo wrote:
> > (snip to)
> >> No. The private sector will revitalize the economy unless the
> >> various flavors of neo-communists in government, the general
> >> population, and even the business community insist on collectivizing
> >> that which should be private. =A0Politicians do not "fix" economies.
> >> They merely damage economies, some more, some less.
>
> > What private sector? =A0The one that has been totally discredited for
> > bring the US and maybe even the world economy to it's very knees.
> > This is the Regan legacy come home to roost.
>
> You are deeply confused. The market and the economy are different
> entities and the economy is fundamentally sound. It is the market
> that needs correcting, and so it is. =A0The market will now do - in
> one very painful and short period - what should have been going
> on incrementally over the years: correct inefficiencies and bad
> choices out of existence. =A0Unless, of course, the various communists
> in government have their way to try and defy Reality by
> passing more laws and giving away more money they do not actually
> have.
>
> The Reagan legacy was sold out by the communist liberals and the
> indifferent vote-grubbing, big spending neo-cons. This is what happens
> when you do NOT honor free markets and use government to distort
> markets to try and achieve financial fantasyland. =A0No, this is
> not a Reagan free market. =A0It is a Marxist fantasy where all problems
> can be resolved with the wave of the magic wand Comrade Obama and his
> minions claim to have. =A0They are fools and they are liars.

I'm not at all confused but you are being overly pedantic. The
economy is not sound; it has been distorted by those greedy bastards
that are looking for a bail out today.

Also, your use of the words "Marxist" and "communist" and "liberal" is
incorrect and contradictory.

Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> borrowers loose their homes and equity. Why should I have to pay
>> to bail either party out?
>
> It's always about "you" isn't it? Every time you open your mouth all that
> comes out is ME, ME, ME. Stick it to everybody else just as long as it
> doesn't cost you anything.You really are the quintessential definition of
> the word "selfishness".
>
> Arrogant, greedy, selfish, don't give a damn for anyone except yourself. You
> exude some of the worst traits in the human condition.
>
> Fortunately, a large amount of your countrymen fail to share your failings.
> Lucky for the rest of the world.
>
>

That's correct, it is about me. It's about no one - you particularly -
having ever explained why the family of someone I've never met
is more deserving of my hard work than *my* family. It's about
no one - you particularly - having ever explained why I have to be
a slave to lazy, irresponsible, dishonest people. That's right,
it's about me.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 25, 12:02=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > =A0Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank a=
nd
> > Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
> > Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortga=
ge
> > market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a =
loan
> > to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
> > re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-ou=
t of
> > the problem they caused.
>
> And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
> it. =A0After all, John McCain relies on his advice. =A0And we all know he
> wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?

In 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell, it was described as the Fall of
Communism. In 2008, Wall Street fell: can this be described as the
Fall of Capitalism?

On Sep 29, 4:00=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jimbo wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 2:22 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Jimbo wrote:
> >>> (snip to)
> >>>> No. The private sector will revitalize the economy unless the
> >>>> various flavors of neo-communists in government, the general
> >>>> population, and even the business community insist on collectivizing
> >>>> that which should be private. =A0Politicians do not "fix" economies.
> >>>> They merely damage economies, some more, some less.
> >>> What private sector? =A0The one that has been totally discredited for
> >>> bring the US and maybe even the world economy to it's very knees.
> >>> This is the Regan legacy come home to roost.
> >> You are deeply confused. The market and the economy are different
> >> entities and the economy is fundamentally sound. It is the market
> >> that needs correcting, and so it is. =A0The market will now do - in
> >> one very painful and short period - what should have been going
> >> on incrementally over the years: correct inefficiencies and bad
> >> choices out of existence. =A0Unless, of course, the various communists
> >> in government have their way to try and defy Reality by
> >> passing more laws and giving away more money they do not actually
> >> have.
>
> >> The Reagan legacy was sold out by the communist liberals and the
> >> indifferent vote-grubbing, big spending neo-cons. This is what happens
> >> when you do NOT honor free markets and use government to distort
> >> markets to try and achieve financial fantasyland. =A0No, this is
> >> not a Reagan free market. =A0It is a Marxist fantasy where all problem=
s
> >> can be resolved with the wave of the magic wand Comrade Obama and his
> >> minions claim to have. =A0They are fools and they are liars.
>
> > I'm not at all confused but you are being overly pedantic. =A0The
> > economy is not sound; it has been distorted by those greedy bastards
> > that are looking for a bail out today.
>
> The economy did NOT get distorted today, because the Republicans
> finally got something right and blocked the bailout.
>
>
>
> > Also, your use of the words "Marxist" and "communist" and "liberal" is
> > incorrect and contradictory.
>
> All three terms - as commonly used to describe some point of view -
> live on the exact same continuum. =A0They are degrees of the same
> pestilence...
>
That's just glib. You know better than that.

> =A0 You're kidding, right?
>
> =A0 During the last 8 years, we've had record low unemployment averaging =
5.2%,
> it was near 6.5% during Carter's years.

Unemployment numbers are flaky at best. A job is not necessarily a
job that really benefits the fundamental economy. Yes, pretty much any
job is better than no job. But, flippin' burgurs and makin' latte
provides limited benefit.


>
> =A0 During the last 8 years, inflation has hovered around 3%, during Cart=
er's
> term it was 6.5% to 13.5%. =A02008 has increased to 4.3% due to energy
> changes, but still below the lowest of Carter's best years.
>
> =A0 During the last 8 years, interest rates have ranged from 5 to 7%; dur=
ing
> the Carter years, interest rates were double-digit.
>

I don't think we know what the effective interest and inflation rates
will be for the Bush years for a decade or more -- an administration
sets the policies and conditions that will determined the first or
second derivatives of each of those . You may have been seeing 5%
inflation, but if the decisions that have been made to hold 5% force
20% in 5 years, then averaging over a more suitable period gives a
better big picture estimate for the prospects of your wealth. It's
tough to measure either inflation or interest well without enough
time. The "what are today's numbers" game for Wall St. is just
another example of the stupidity.
None of this is to be a Carter apologist -- he screwed up in many
ways. But it's folly to blame everything that happens in a
president's tenure solely on that president unless there are discrete
poor decisions. Bush inherited some of Slick Willie's problems --
history will, I believe, crucify him for his discrete decisions and
for not trying to correct Clnton's errors (i.e. growing China too
fast).

hex
-30-

"hex" wrote

> Unemployment numbers are flaky at best. A job is not necessarily a
> job that really benefits the fundamental economy. Yes, pretty much any
> job is better than no job. But, flippin' burgurs and makin' latte
> provides limited benefit.

And, IIRC, those statistics for jobs flipping burgers are now included as
jobs in "manufacturing" ... a despicable subterfuge, almost as bad as
removing the cost of food and fuel from the "inflation index".

Another reason why there should not be an incumbent left standing in
Congress after November.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sep 25, 12:12=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> >> =A0Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank =
and
> >> Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
> >> Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortg=
age
> >> market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a=
loan
> >> to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
> >> re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-o=
ut of
> >> the problem they caused.
>
> > And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
> > it. =A0After all, John McCain relies on his advice. =A0And we all know =
he
> > wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?
>
> You mean like Comrade Obama and his cast of thugs here in
> IL? (The Mayor, the Governor, two convicted felons - one
> a 60s mad bomber and the other one Obama's real estate fairy.)
>
> "I'll take liberal hypocrisy for 500 Alex...."
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim.
If your arguments weren't so *strident* they might merit some
discussion. As you present them, I read that you're a conservative
bigot who will broach no discussion to the contrary.

On Sep 26, 2:30=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jimbo wrote:
> > On Sep 25, 12:12 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >>>> =A0Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Fran=
k and
> >>>> Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
> >>>> Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mor=
tgage
> >>>> market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get=
a loan
> >>>> to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
> >>>> re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail=
-out of
> >>>> the problem they caused.
> >>> And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do wi=
th
> >>> it. =A0After all, John McCain relies on his advice. =A0And we all kno=
w he
> >>> wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?
> >> You mean like Comrade Obama and his cast of thugs here in
> >> IL? (The Mayor, the Governor, two convicted felons - one
> >> a 60s mad bomber and the other one Obama's real estate fairy.)
>
> >> "I'll take liberal hypocrisy for 500 Alex...."
>
> >> --
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
------
> >> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> >> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> > Tim.
> > If your arguments weren't so *strident* they might merit some
> > discussion. =A0As you present them, I read that you're a conservative
> > bigot who will broach no discussion to the contrary.
>
> I am neither a conservative nor a bigot. =A0I am unapologetically
> opposed to force, fraud, and threat. =A0I live in IL and have seen
> Obama for what he is locally. =A0If he is elected it will not be
> me who is disappointed - I already have very low expectations for
> both him and McCain - It will be Obama's groupies who will get sold
> out in acts of political expediency, no different than pretty
> much everyone else who ever supported the man. =A0I strongly urge
> people to read the New Yorker article on Obama's rise to power
> to just get a small taste of what a political bottomfeeder this
> guy is.
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim.
Love him or hate him, Obama represents the best chance the US has to
raise itself out of the mess that Bush has either created or made
worse (depending on where you believe it all started). Obama will
bring a renewed status to the US on the international stage and his
ideas will revitalize the US economy. Your delving into his history
is irrelavant and backward looking. Remember, perception is reality.
When Obama is elected - and I predict he will be by a large margin -
the markets will sit back and wait to see who he brings into the
Treasury. Then the economic resurgence will begin. This time it will
be have a broader base and will improve the lives of more Americans
than any time in recent history. I also predict a second term for him.

On Sep 27, 8:39=A0am, "Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Better think this one through. =A0So I make my 20% down payment, get a
> > fixed interest rate, live frugally so that I can pay off my mortgage,
> > live my life debt free, often denying myself and family things because
> > I don't want debt, save religiously, =A0make it to retirement oblivious
> > of the fact that my pension fund and 401K, even though they are rather
> > conservatively invested, are intertwined with these 40-50 to 1
> > leveraged firms that are going down and are at risk of catastrophic
> > failure as a result.
>
> > The time for the hard line was before the fact. =A0The people you
> > describe as causative above will lose very little because they had no
> > skin in the game. =A0Those living off of someone else will walk away
> > from their debt and continue to live off of somebody else. =A0The greed=
y
> > evil corporate bankers and CEO's will get large severance packages,
> > and will complain at the country club that if it had held up they
> > would be far richer. Politicians will continue to spin the truth and
> > get elected or, if not, join lobbying firms to lobby their
> > replacements.
>
> > But hundreds of millions described above, who had nothing to do with
> > the cause, will suffer greatly. =A0It is true that if nothing is done,
> > they won't have to worry about paying to bail either party out, if
> > this thing spirals down as modeled by a number of economists, they
> > won't have enough assets and income to pay taxes to do so.
>
> =A0 =A0 If this guy is right, it can't be good.
> Kevin Phillips on Bill Moyers:http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09192008/=
watch2.html
>
> Dave in Houston

A well-spent 26 minutes. Thanks for the link.

On Sep 27, 11:40=A0pm, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "NuWave Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> > : =A0Perhaps you can help me out here, I'm not yet fully up on my Book =
of
> > : Obama: =A0Does all of the above happen before or after he lowers the
> > ocean
> > : levels and heals the sick?
> > : =A0If, by some chance our country is punished with an Obama presidenc=
y,
> > it is
> > : more likely we will finally experience that Jimmy Carter second term
> > that
> > : we missed in the 80's.
>
> > =A0 =A0How in hell could anyone be worse than the dipshit we've had in =
the
> > White House for the last eight years?
>
> > Dave in Houston
>
> I imagine a similar sentiment being uttered about this time in 1976. =A0J=
ust
> wait. =A0It can always be worse. =A0But I can already hear it. =A0Anythin=
g good
> that happens will be because of Obama, and anything bad will have been
> Bush's fault.
>
> todd

'S funny. For 7-1/2 years, the neocons have been blaming it all on
Clinton.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> And, IIRC, those statistics for jobs flipping burgers are now included as
> jobs in "manufacturing" ... a despicable subterfuge, almost as bad as
> removing the cost of food and fuel from the "inflation index".

Nothing new about that. A long time ago, I realized the more successful
managers were the ones that could best skew the statistics. And so it goes
all the way up to the top.

On Sep 29, 4:45=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>
>
> >>> Also, your use of the words "Marxist" and "communist" and "liberal" i=
s
> >>> incorrect and contradictory.
> >> All three terms - as commonly used to describe some point of view -
> >> live on the exact same continuum. =A0They are degrees of the same
> >> pestilence...
>
> > That's just glib. You know better than that.
>
> All three are forms of collectivism in which the power of the group
> is used to take away from the individual. =A0They are - all three of them=
-
> variations of the same mindset implemented in varying degrees.

This is a ridiculous over-simplification - kind of like suggesting
that all Republicans are Fascists.

"Dave in Houston" wrote
>
> "Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Better think this one through. So I make my 20% down payment, get a
>> fixed interest rate, live frugally so that I can pay off my mortgage,
>> live my life debt free, often denying myself and family things because
>> I don't want debt, save religiously, make it to retirement oblivious
>> of the fact that my pension fund and 401K, even though they are rather
>> conservatively invested, are intertwined with these 40-50 to 1
>> leveraged firms that are going down and are at risk of catastrophic
>> failure as a result.
>>
>> The time for the hard line was before the fact. The people you
>> describe as causative above will lose very little because they had no
>> skin in the game. Those living off of someone else will walk away
>> from their debt and continue to live off of somebody else. The greedy
>> evil corporate bankers and CEO's will get large severance packages,
>> and will complain at the country club that if it had held up they
>> would be far richer. Politicians will continue to spin the truth and
>> get elected or, if not, join lobbying firms to lobby their
>> replacements.
>>
>> But hundreds of millions described above, who had nothing to do with
>> the cause, will suffer greatly. It is true that if nothing is done,
>> they won't have to worry about paying to bail either party out, if
>> this thing spirals down as modeled by a number of economists, they
>> won't have enough assets and income to pay taxes to do so.
>
>
> If this guy is right, it can't be good.
> Kevin Phillips on Bill Moyers:
> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09192008/watch2.html

This guy is right, and so are you!

Not only is he right, but if you go back and read through the archives of
this newsgroup alone you will see his premise alluded to again and again by
many of us common folk, particularly by those who share an all important age
based perspective. All regarding issues such as loss of manufacturing, with
emphasis on a burger flipping service economy and its attendant, ignorance
based acceptance of shoddy goods and services; rampant corporate greed; a
broken educational system (which, at its highest levels encourages that
greed and blurs the distinction between morality and legality in our laws
and social systems, with no moral compass to guide); social welfare
trappings that exist mainly to salve a guilty conscious; illegal
immigration; fiscal irresponsibility at all levels (just wait until the
unsustainable credit card debt "bubble" hits the fan); and the inexplicable,
tacitly allowed and insidious, government gridlock/ineptitude; which are all
blatant, visible manifestations of an economy and culture spiraling
downwards.

This crisis, with more to come, has been predictable for some time, which
begs the question that if us common folk can see it coming, why the hell not
our elected "representatives" ... for "leaders" they are provably not?

You can now sit back and wait for the next "crisis" stemming directly from
the "What's in your wallet?" mentality.

Simply put: "what you sow, you shall reap"...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Robatoy" wrote

<snip>

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/187.html

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> borrowers loose their homes and equity. Why should I have to pay
> to bail either party out?

It's always about "you" isn't it? Every time you open your mouth all that
comes out is ME, ME, ME. Stick it to everybody else just as long as it
doesn't cost you anything.You really are the quintessential definition of
the word "selfishness".

Arrogant, greedy, selfish, don't give a damn for anyone except yourself. You
exude some of the worst traits in the human condition.

Fortunately, a large amount of your countrymen fail to share your failings.
Lucky for the rest of the world.

Frank Boettcher wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:36:42 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> The core of the crisis was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for setting
>>>> the loan
>>>> standards so low that those swap agreements and hybrid instruments
>>>> contained loans to people with no chance of paying them back. This
>>>> was done at the direction of Congress who demanded an end to
>>>> "redlining" and the availability of "affordable mortgages" to more
>>>> people. At its height, it was possible for people to walk in and get
>>>> a loan with no down payment and not even have proof of employment.
>>> The real core of the problem is not the direction of Congress so much as
>>> the implementation. Isn't it the fiduciary duty of banks etc to protect
>>> their depositors' and stockholders' "investments? Then they (the banks and
>>> investment firms) should have NOT invested in dubious loans and Ponzi
>>> schemes of insurance thereon. The fault of Congress is only in not
>>> insuring that there was proper oversight and regulation of the Ponzi
>>> schemes and 120% of value mortgages.
>>>
>>> Don't blame attempts to increase home ownership and responsibility for
>>> irresponsible acts by greedy banks, investment and insurance firms, as well
>>> as corrupt ratings agencies. (Not saying that F&F are blameless).
>>>
>> So ... the banks are "irresponsible" and "greedy" for trying to maximize
>> their profits.
>
> Yes, if they did it by leveraging 40-50 to one and knew the risk
> factors. Watched some interviews yesterday with some CEO's of smaller
> banks and investement firms that are leveraged 3-4 to one and they are
> doing just fine, return on assets very repectable.

If we just let them fail, this problem would be self-correcting.

>
>> But the welfare queens who already were living off
>> of everyone else's money are noble? The government is as responsible
>> for this mess as the banks. So are the people who borrowed money for
>> homes they could not actually afford.
>
> agreed.
>
>> It's just convenient to blame
>> the eeeeeeeeeeevil rich people because the slimy left has so ingrained
>> class warfare in the public mind.
>
> agreed. The responsible rich did not cause this.
>
>> The best thing we could do here
>> would be *nothing*. Let all the participants in this fiasco reap what
>> the sowed. Let the irresponsible banks go under. Let the irresponsible
>> borrowers loose their homes and equity. Why should I have to pay
>> to bail either party out?
>
> Better think this one through. So I make my 20% down payment, get a
> fixed interest rate, live frugally so that I can pay off my mortgage,
> live my life debt free, often denying myself and family things because
> I don't want debt, save religiously, make it to retirement oblivious
> of the fact that my pension fund and 401K, even though they are rather
> conservatively invested, are intertwined with these 40-50 to 1
> leveraged firms that are going down and are at risk of catastrophic
> failure as a result.

So that means - and I face this decision like so many others - we
have to rebalance our retirement portfolios - now before the
bottom falls out.

>
> The time for the hard line was before the fact. The people you
> describe as causative above will lose very little because they had no
> skin in the game. Those living off of someone else will walk away
> from their debt and continue to live off of somebody else. The greedy
> evil corporate bankers and CEO's will get large severance packages,
> and will complain at the country club that if it had held up they
> would be far richer. Politicians will continue to spin the truth and
> get elected or, if not, join lobbying firms to lobby their
> replacements.

But, if we have bailout, we'll all be paying to *perpetuate* what you've
just described.

>
> But hundreds of millions described above, who had nothing to do with
> the cause, will suffer greatly. It is true that if nothing is done,
> they won't have to worry about paying to bail either party out, if
> this thing spirals down as modeled by a number of economists, they
> won't have enough assets and income to pay taxes to do so.
>
> My thoughts.
>
> Frank
>
>

You are - I think - right, up to a point. The problem is that there
is *no* fix. The most the government can do is delay the inevitable.
This whole mess starts and ends with business, individuals, and government
living in economic fantasyland. Trying to buy our way out of it now
with tax money will fix nothing. It will weaken the dollar and cause
a consequent increase in oil prices. When government interdicts and
distorts markets, no good thing comes from it. We need to get back
to "Root, hog, or die" as did our forefathers.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Jimbo wrote:
> (snip to)
>> No. The private sector will revitalize the economy unless the
>> various flavors of neo-communists in government, the general
>> population, and even the business community insist on collectivizing
>> that which should be private. Politicians do not "fix" economies.
>> They merely damage economies, some more, some less.
>>
> What private sector? The one that has been totally discredited for
> bring the US and maybe even the world economy to it's very knees.
> This is the Regan legacy come home to roost.


You are deeply confused. The market and the economy are different
entities and the economy is fundamentally sound. It is the market
that needs correcting, and so it is. The market will now do - in
one very painful and short period - what should have been going
on incrementally over the years: correct inefficiencies and bad
choices out of existence. Unless, of course, the various communists
in government have their way to try and defy Reality by
passing more laws and giving away more money they do not actually
have.

The Reagan legacy was sold out by the communist liberals and the
indifferent vote-grubbing, big spending neo-cons. This is what happens
when you do NOT honor free markets and use government to distort
markets to try and achieve financial fantasyland. No, this is
not a Reagan free market. It is a Marxist fantasy where all problems
can be resolved with the wave of the magic wand Comrade Obama and his
minions claim to have. They are fools and they are liars.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

These, of course, had nothing to do with anything...
Renata



" Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 ...
...By preventing mergers between the various branches of Wall Street,
...[this] act reversed basic Depression-era legislation passed to
prevent the sort of collapse we are now experiencing.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
...legitimized the "swap agreements" and other "hybrid instruments"
that are at the core of the crisis.

"Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000," Title IV of the
law--a law that Gramm snuck in without hearings hours before the
Christmas recess--provided Wall Street with an unbridled license to
steal. It made certain that financiers could legally get away with a
whole new array of financial rip-off schemes.

One of those provisions, summarized by the heading of Title III,
ensured the "Legal Certainty for Swap Agreements," which successfully
divorced the granters of subprime mortgage loans from any obligation
to ever collect on them. That provision of Gramm's law is at the very
heart of the problem.
But the law went even further, prohibiting regulation of any of the
new financial instruments permitted after the financial industry
mergers: "No provision of the Commodity Exchange Act shall apply to,
and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall not exercise
regulatory authority with respect to, an identified banking product
which had not been commonly offered, entered into, or provided in the
United States by any bank on or before December 5, 2000. ..."
from an article by Robert Scheer


On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> The subject takes me back to 1960, a few weeks before graduation.
>>
>> Was in an industrial engineering class, the instructor had spent a
>> lifetime in the real world, and up to then, not much in the class
>> room.
>>
>> The subject of the Edsel, the 1958 FoMoCo screw up, the largest
>> business screw up since the Curtis-Wright mess of 1940, was brought up
>> for discussion.
>>
>> Still remember the instructors advice:
>>
>> Class, if you are going to screw up, make it as big as possible.
>>
>> They fire you for making small mistakes.
>>
>> They won't fire you if the mistake is big enough because that will
>> make the guy who hired you look like an idiot.
>>
>> Almost 50 years later, sounds like there is about to be a repeat
>> application of that advice.
>>
>> Lew
>
> Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
>Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
>Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
>market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a loan
>to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
>re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out of
>the problem they caused.
>
> Talk about the ultimate promotion.

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:

> So ... the banks are "irresponsible" and "greedy" for trying to maximize
> their profits. But the welfare queens who already were living off
> of everyone else's money are noble?

AIG was $579 billion in debt.

The CEO of AIG made 5.6 million which included a "performance bonus."
for ruining the company.

Total US welfare costs are $440 million per year.

Blaiming the problem is those on welfare is really misguided and
and frankly bigoted.

By the way - have you ever talked to anyone on Welfare? Like those
people still living in FEMA trailers that have 5 times the normal
level of Formaldehyde gas? I bet they feel like queens. Sure.

(snip to)
>
> No. The private sector will revitalize the economy unless the
> various flavors of neo-communists in government, the general
> population, and even the business community insist on collectivizing
> that which should be private. =A0Politicians do not "fix" economies.
> They merely damage economies, some more, some less.
>
What private sector? The one that has been totally discredited for
bring the US and maybe even the world economy to it's very knees.
This is the Regan legacy come home to roost.

Jimbo wrote:

... snip
>
> Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges: Obama will be a beacon
> for democracy (small d - not the party) in the US and the world. His
> acceptance will be widespread and will include the disenfranchised.
> He will try to lower the ocean level by joining with the rest of the
> developed world and trying to do something positive about climate
> change. This should actually bring the US to a leadership position in
> R&D, manufacture and use of alternative energy sources. He will heal
> the sick by improving medicare. You have so much to look forward to
> over the next eight years. It's going to be great.

The Koolaid is strong in this one. Nothing to be done here, this one is
beyond saving. Reality is going to hit hard; people said the same kinds of
things about Josef and Vladimer.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Swingman wrote:

> What bailout, eh?
>
> Now we get to watch WS throw their little hissy fits for a while, then
> market forces will take over, for better or worse, and we can get back to
> things like manufacturing, technology and agricultural and forgo this
> trading of little bits of paper around as the holy grail of capitalism
>
> Too bad though ... while the House finally got something right, it's a
> sure bet it will turn out to be for the wrong reasons.
>

Yeah, and more than likely, the wrong people are going to get blamed and
punished for whatever happens.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

NuWave Dave wrote:

>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : Perhaps you can help me out here, I'm not yet fully up on my Book of
> : Obama: Does all of the above happen before or after he lowers the
> ocean
> : levels and heals the sick?
> : If, by some chance our country is punished with an Obama presidency,
> it is
> : more likely we will finally experience that Jimmy Carter second term
> that
> : we missed in the 80's.
>
> How in hell could anyone be worse than the dipshit we've had in the
> White House for the last eight years?
>
> Dave in Houston

You're kidding, right?

During the last 8 years, we've had record low unemployment averaging 5.2%,
it was near 6.5% during Carter's years.

During the last 8 years, inflation has hovered around 3%, during Carter's
term it was 6.5% to 13.5%. 2008 has increased to 4.3% due to energy
changes, but still below the lowest of Carter's best years.

During the last 8 years, interest rates have ranged from 5 to 7%; during
the Carter years, interest rates were double-digit.

Aside from locations undergoing natural disasters, nobody has stood in gas
lines to fill up. Gas lines were first encountered during Carter's term.

In the past 8 years, Bush has never blamed the American people for the
country's problems. In his infamous "malaise" speech, Carter effectively
did.

During Carter's administration, due to the lack of attention paid to the
military, it was unable to rescue 50 hostages from a single city in a third
world country, nor were we capable of responding to the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan by doing anything other than boycotting the Moscow Olympics.
During the past 8 years, a terror-supporting radical theocratic regime in
Afghanistan was brought down and a terror-supporting thug in the Middle
East was brought down and his country is now establishing a democracy.

Carter thought he could solve problems by talking also -- that's why Iran
held those hostages so long. "As a fellow person of faith, I ask you to
free those being held by your people" (or words to that effect) -- Jimmy
Carter to the Ayatollah Khomeni. "We have his people and there's not a
damn thing he can do about it" -- Ayatollah Khomeni


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

What bailout, eh?

Now we get to watch WS throw their little hissy fits for a while, then
market forces will take over, for better or worse, and we can get back to
things like manufacturing, technology and agricultural and forgo this
trading of little bits of paper around as the holy grail of capitalism

Too bad though ... while the House finally got something right, it's a sure
bet it will turn out to be for the wrong reasons.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

RE: Subject

Wonder how much farther the stock market has to drop before Congress
gets it's act together?

Today it was about $1,000,000,000,000.

Sometimes Congress gets paid to make unpopular decisions. This appears
to be one of those times.

Lew

RE: Subject

Still remember my father's words:
>.......................................
"If you can prove to the GD banks that you don't need the money, then
the SOB's will loan you all the money you want."

Made life a bitch for a lot of people, but it kept the banks in
business.

Seems like the financial industry forgot who brought them to the
dance.

Lew

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >
> >> Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
> >> Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
> >> Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
> >> market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a
> >> loan to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
> >> re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out
> >> of the problem they caused.
> >
> > And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
> > it. After all, John McCain relies on his advice. And we all know he
> > wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?
>
> It is debateable that the repeal of the Glass-Steigal act had anything to
> do with this. After all, it really didn't matter whether brokerage houses
> or banks were the ones getting this toxic waste from Freddie Mac and Fannie
> Mae.

IMO, it does. Without Wall St. the banks would be holding more of
their own paper. The money wouldn't be made so much from
originating the loans as holding them. They would naturally be more
careful with their own portfolio.

OTOH, once the investment houses got involved, anything with a AAA
rating was the same as any other and "AAA" got stamped on
everything. The really silly thing was the banks were packaging and
selling known junk on the loan side of their operations, then
having their investment side buy the same junk others were
packaging. Apparently they thought others somehow had a better
class of "AAA" junk.

--
Keith

"Jimbo" wrote

> In 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell, it was described as the Fall of
> Communism. In 2008, Wall Street fell: can this be described as the
> Fall of Capitalism?

The "Fall of Mortgages Being Backed by Welfare Payments" is a more apt
description, eh?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Jimbo wrote:

... snip
> Love him or hate him, Obama represents the best chance the US has to
> raise itself out of the mess that Bush has either created or made
> worse (depending on where you believe it all started). Obama will
> bring a renewed status to the US on the international stage and his
> ideas will revitalize the US economy. Your delving into his history
> is irrelavant and backward looking. Remember, perception is reality.
> When Obama is elected - and I predict he will be by a large margin -
> the markets will sit back and wait to see who he brings into the
> Treasury. Then the economic resurgence will begin. This time it will
> be have a broader base and will improve the lives of more Americans
> than any time in recent history.

Perhaps you can help me out here, I'm not yet fully up on my Book of
Obama: Does all of the above happen before or after he lowers the ocean
levels and heals the sick?


> I also predict a second term for him.

If, by some chance our country is punished with an Obama presidency, it is
more likely we will finally experience that Jimmy Carter second term that
we missed in the 80's.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Better think this one through. So I make my 20% down payment, get a
> fixed interest rate, live frugally so that I can pay off my mortgage,
> live my life debt free, often denying myself and family things because
> I don't want debt, save religiously, make it to retirement oblivious
> of the fact that my pension fund and 401K, even though they are rather
> conservatively invested, are intertwined with these 40-50 to 1
> leveraged firms that are going down and are at risk of catastrophic
> failure as a result.
>
> The time for the hard line was before the fact. The people you
> describe as causative above will lose very little because they had no
> skin in the game. Those living off of someone else will walk away
> from their debt and continue to live off of somebody else. The greedy
> evil corporate bankers and CEO's will get large severance packages,
> and will complain at the country club that if it had held up they
> would be far richer. Politicians will continue to spin the truth and
> get elected or, if not, join lobbying firms to lobby their
> replacements.
>
> But hundreds of millions described above, who had nothing to do with
> the cause, will suffer greatly. It is true that if nothing is done,
> they won't have to worry about paying to bail either party out, if
> this thing spirals down as modeled by a number of economists, they
> won't have enough assets and income to pay taxes to do so.


If this guy is right, it can't be good.
Kevin Phillips on Bill Moyers:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09192008/watch2.html

Dave in Houston

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> The core of the crisis was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for setting
> the loan
> standards so low that those swap agreements and hybrid instruments
> contained loans to people with no chance of paying them back. This
> was done at the direction of Congress who demanded an end to
> "redlining" and the availability of "affordable mortgages" to more
> people. At its height, it was possible for people to walk in and get
> a loan with no down payment and not even have proof of employment.

The real core of the problem is not the direction of Congress so much as
the implementation. Isn't it the fiduciary duty of banks etc to protect
their depositors' and stockholders' "investments? Then they (the banks and
investment firms) should have NOT invested in dubious loans and Ponzi
schemes of insurance thereon. The fault of Congress is only in not
insuring that there was proper oversight and regulation of the Ponzi
schemes and 120% of value mortgages.

Don't blame attempts to increase home ownership and responsibility for
irresponsible acts by greedy banks, investment and insurance firms, as well
as corrupt ratings agencies. (Not saying that F&F are blameless).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:mk8vq5-agi.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

> So ... the banks are "irresponsible" and "greedy" for trying to maximize
> their profits. But the welfare queens who already were living off
> of everyone else's money are noble? The government is as responsible
> for this mess as the banks. So are the people who borrowed money for
> homes they could not actually afford. It's just convenient to blame
> the eeeeeeeeeeevil rich people because the slimy left has so ingrained
> class warfare in the public mind. The best thing we could do here
> would be *nothing*. Let all the participants in this fiasco reap what
> the sowed. Let the irresponsible banks go under. Let the irresponsible
> borrowers loose their homes and equity. Why should I have to pay
> to bail either party out?
>

Yo should read your writings from the point of view of an unbiased mind,
and you'll understand why I won't say anymore than
<plonK>

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:n5a2r5-7rr.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

> we need an immediate return to limited government, individual
> responsibility, and self-sufficiency.

Limiting government is easy to legislate.
Individual responsibility is an ideal, almost impossile to legislate.
Self-sufficiency is a dream, possibly attainable by erecting HUGE trade
barriers, but who is going to profit from limited resources after the
barriers are erected, pray answer?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han <[email protected]> wrote in news:Xns9B269B2BB8027ikkezelf@
199.45.49.11:

> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:n5a2r5-7rr.ln1
> @ozzie.tundraware.com:
>
>> we need an immediate return to limited government, individual
>> responsibility, and self-sufficiency.
>
> Limiting government is easy to legislate.
> Individual responsibility is an ideal, almost impossile to legislate.
................................................impossible to legislate,
let alone enforce.
> Self-sufficiency is a dream, possibly attainable by erecting HUGE trade
> barriers, but who is going to profit from limited resources after the
> barriers are erected, pray answer?
>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

hex <[email protected]> wrote in news:2df403e7-aae3-447a-
[email protected]:

> I don't think we know what the effective interest and inflation rates
> will be for the Bush years for a decade or more -- an administration
> sets the policies and conditions that will determined the first or
> second derivatives of each of those . You may have been seeing 5%
> inflation, but if the decisions that have been made to hold 5% force
> 20% in 5 years, then averaging over a more suitable period gives a
> better big picture estimate for the prospects of your wealth.

Another measure of inflation would be what the value is of the dollar
versus other currencies. If (for example) the US$/€ ratio changes from
0.85 to 1.5, there is great devaluation of the dollar. That makes US
goods much cheaper in Europe, which artificially reduces unemployment
here, for the moment, and imported goods (oil?) much more expensive for
the US (despite the oil being pegged to the dollar, the oil producers
still want to get their European luxury goods <hehe>). So in the absence
of really good inflation control (which will hurt the common man more
than the rich), we are in for bad times, thanks to the Bush years.
Whatever you might say of Clinton, that regime ended with a suplus on the
balance sheet. Bush' tax cuts and war (and NOT entitlements) have raised
the deficit to unprecedented heights, and someone will have to pay off
those debts, someone in the future.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Lew Hodgett" wrote
> RE: Subject
>
> Wonder how much farther the stock market has to drop before Congress gets
> it's act together?
>
> Today it was about $1,000,000,000,000.

Let me propose something that you won't hear on Wall Street or Capital Hill:

The absolute proof of something's true worth is how quickly it loses its
value.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sep 27, 9:44=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jimbo wrote:
>
> ... snip
>
> > Love him or hate him, Obama represents the best chance the US has to
> > raise itself out of the mess that Bush has either created or made
> > worse (depending on where you believe it all started). =A0Obama will
> > bring a renewed status to the US on the international stage and his
> > ideas will revitalize the US economy. =A0Your delving into his history
> > is irrelavant and backward looking. =A0Remember, perception is reality.
> > When Obama is elected - and I predict he will be by a large margin -
> > the markets will sit back and wait to see who he brings into the
> > Treasury. =A0Then the economic resurgence will begin. =A0This time it w=
ill
> > be have a broader base and will improve the lives of more Americans
> > than any time in recent history. =A0
>
> =A0 Perhaps you can help me out here, I'm not yet fully up on my Book of
> Obama: =A0Does all of the above happen before or after he lowers the ocea=
n
> levels and heals the sick?
>
> > I also predict a second term for him.
>
> =A0 If, by some chance our country is punished with an Obama presidency, =
it is
> more likely we will finally experience that Jimmy Carter second term that
> we missed in the 80's.
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Comparing Obama to Carter doesn't really make a lot sense to me.
Maybe its an age thing :)

Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges: Obama will be a beacon
for democracy (small d - not the party) in the US and the world. His
acceptance will be widespread and will include the disenfranchised.
He will try to lower the ocean level by joining with the rest of the
developed world and trying to do something positive about climate
change. This should actually bring the US to a leadership position in
R&D, manufacture and use of alternative energy sources. He will heal
the sick by improving medicare. You have so much to look forward to
over the next eight years. It's going to be great.

Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:n5a2r5-7rr.ln1
> @ozzie.tundraware.com:
>
>> we need an immediate return to limited government, individual
>> responsibility, and self-sufficiency.
>
> Limiting government is easy to legislate.

And is corrupted almost immediately by the mooching sheeple.

> Individual responsibility is an ideal, almost impossile to legislate.

But can be strongly "encouraged" by holding people accountable when
they harm another person. "Harm" here pretty much always comes in
some form of fraud, force, or threat.

> Self-sufficiency is a dream, possibly attainable by erecting HUGE trade
> barriers, but who is going to profit from limited resources after the
> barriers are erected, pray answer?
>

I wrote this imprecisely. By "self sufficiency", I don't mean
independent of each other or our trading partners. Successful people
are always voluntarily interdependent. What I meant was "not dependent
on the involuntary confiscations of our fellow citizens' assets".

IOW - Root, Hog, Or Die...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Jimbo wrote:
<SNIP>

> Comparing Obama to Carter doesn't really make a lot sense to me.
> Maybe its an age thing :)

One is a Southern communist, the other one is an urban communist.

>
> Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges: Obama will be a beacon
> for democracy (small d - not the party) in the US and the world. His

You mean by meeting with Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Hezbolla,
and Hamas?

> acceptance will be widespread and will include the disenfranchised.

Where "disenfranchised" = "everyone who wants something that does not
legitimately belong to them".

> He will try to lower the ocean level by joining with the rest of the
> developed world and trying to do something positive about climate
> change.

I hope he starts - if elected - by walking everywhere and eschewing
the use of all technology that is supposedly causing this imaginary
bugaboo of yours.

This should actually bring the US to a leadership position in
> R&D, manufacture and use of alternative energy sources. He will heal

Yes, by passing laws to make the economy work better on the command
of congress, no doubt.

> the sick by improving medicare. You have so much to look forward to
> over the next eight years. It's going to be great.


I thought he was going to heal the sick via miracles as he walked on
water.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 28, 1:42=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "hex" =A0wrote
>
> > Unemployment numbers are flaky at best. =A0A job is not necessarily a
> > job that really benefits the fundamental economy. Yes, pretty much any
> > job is better than no job. =A0But, flippin' burgurs and makin' latte
> > provides limited benefit.
>
> And, IIRC, those statistics for jobs flipping burgers are now included as
> jobs in "manufacturing" ... a despicable subterfuge, almost as bad as
> removing the cost of food and fuel from the "inflation index".
>
> Another reason why there should not be an incumbent left standing in
> Congress after November.
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 8/18/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)

http://tinyurl.com/4dqcqo

On Sep 29, 2:29=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I thought he was going to heal the sick via miracles as he walked on
> water.
>

Oh noooo, Obama is pinko fag commie junkie! They don't walk on water.

Same old, same old from Tim. Lots of finger pointing and no fresh
ideas. Kind of like that armchair quarterback with a big mouth but
runs out of breath whilst tying his shoes.

On Sep 29, 5:27=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jimbo wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 4:45 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
>
> >> <SNIP>
>
> >>>>> Also, your use of the words "Marxist" and "communist" and "liberal"=
is
> >>>>> incorrect and contradictory.
> >>>> All three terms - as commonly used to describe some point of view -
> >>>> live on the exact same continuum. =A0They are degrees of the same
> >>>> pestilence...
> >>> That's just glib. You know better than that.
> >> All three are forms of collectivism in which the power of the group
> >> is used to take away from the individual. =A0They are - all three of t=
hem -
> >> variations of the same mindset implemented in varying degrees.
>
> > This is a ridiculous over-simplification - kind of like suggesting
>
> It is an entirely accurate taxonomy. =A0I'm sorry it hurts your feelings,
> but this is what you are supporting.

You have failed to prove your first statement. It doesn't hurt my
feeling at all. After all, I am a liberal in the real sense of the
word.

> > that all Republicans are Fascists.
>
> Most Republicans are also collectivists at some level. =A0
>
Some of my best friends are Republicans. Our arguments usually start
when they start to declare their sense of entitlement

On Sep 29, 2:29=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jimbo wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > Comparing Obama to Carter doesn't really make a lot sense to me.
> > Maybe its an age thing :)
>
> One is a Southern communist, the other one is an urban communist.
>
>
>
> > Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges: Obama will be a beacon
> > for democracy (small d - not the party) in the US and the world. =A0His
>
> You mean by meeting with Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Hezbolla,
> and Hamas?
>
> > acceptance will be widespread and will include the disenfranchised.
>
> Where "disenfranchised" =3D "everyone who wants something that does not
> legitimately belong to them".
>
> > He will try to lower the ocean level by joining with the rest of the
> > developed world and trying to do something positive about climate
> > change. =A0
>
> I hope he starts - if elected - by walking everywhere and eschewing
> the use of all technology that is supposedly causing this imaginary
> bugaboo of yours.
>
> This should actually bring the US to a leadership position in
>
> > R&D, manufacture and use of alternative energy sources. =A0He will heal
>
> Yes, by passing laws to make the economy work better on the command
> of congress, no doubt.
>
> > the sick by improving medicare. =A0You have so much to look forward to
> > over the next eight years. =A0It's going to be great.
>
> I thought he was going to heal the sick via miracles as he walked on
> water.

So now you're suggesting that climate change is an "imaginary
bugaboo"? And what is wrong with meeting "Chavez, Ahmadinejad,
Castro, Hezbolla, and Hamas"? Is that not a good thing? Name me a
President or Presidential candidate who did not meet with questionable
people at some stage in their candidacy or term of office.

On Sep 27, 11:27=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> =A0 You're kidding, right?
>
> =A0 During the last 8 years, we've had record low unemployment averaging =
5.2%,
> it was near 6.5% during Carter's years.
>

The lateral shift of 500,000 jobs from $ 25.00 per hour to the jobs
that pay $ 6.00 per hour doesn't affect he unemployment numbers, now
does it?

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:10:19 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Frank Boettcher wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:36:42 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> The core of the crisis was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for setting
>>>>> the loan
>>>>> standards so low that those swap agreements and hybrid instruments
>>>>> contained loans to people with no chance of paying them back. This
>>>>> was done at the direction of Congress who demanded an end to
>>>>> "redlining" and the availability of "affordable mortgages" to more
>>>>> people. At its height, it was possible for people to walk in and get
>>>>> a loan with no down payment and not even have proof of employment.
>>>> The real core of the problem is not the direction of Congress so much as
>>>> the implementation. Isn't it the fiduciary duty of banks etc to protect
>>>> their depositors' and stockholders' "investments? Then they (the banks and
>>>> investment firms) should have NOT invested in dubious loans and Ponzi
>>>> schemes of insurance thereon. The fault of Congress is only in not
>>>> insuring that there was proper oversight and regulation of the Ponzi
>>>> schemes and 120% of value mortgages.
>>>>
>>>> Don't blame attempts to increase home ownership and responsibility for
>>>> irresponsible acts by greedy banks, investment and insurance firms, as well
>>>> as corrupt ratings agencies. (Not saying that F&F are blameless).
>>>>
>>> So ... the banks are "irresponsible" and "greedy" for trying to maximize
>>> their profits.
>>
>> Yes, if they did it by leveraging 40-50 to one and knew the risk
>> factors. Watched some interviews yesterday with some CEO's of smaller
>> banks and investement firms that are leveraged 3-4 to one and they are
>> doing just fine, return on assets very repectable.
>
>If we just let them fail, this problem would be self-correcting.

Don't think so, too intertwined, I'm led to believe. But I'm no
expert.
>
>>
>>> But the welfare queens who already were living off
>>> of everyone else's money are noble? The government is as responsible
>>> for this mess as the banks. So are the people who borrowed money for
>>> homes they could not actually afford.
>>
>> agreed.
>>
>>> It's just convenient to blame
>>> the eeeeeeeeeeevil rich people because the slimy left has so ingrained
>>> class warfare in the public mind.
>>
>> agreed. The responsible rich did not cause this.
>>
>>> The best thing we could do here
>>> would be *nothing*. Let all the participants in this fiasco reap what
>>> the sowed. Let the irresponsible banks go under. Let the irresponsible
>>> borrowers loose their homes and equity. Why should I have to pay
>>> to bail either party out?
>>
>> Better think this one through. So I make my 20% down payment, get a
>> fixed interest rate, live frugally so that I can pay off my mortgage,
>> live my life debt free, often denying myself and family things because
>> I don't want debt, save religiously, make it to retirement oblivious
>> of the fact that my pension fund and 401K, even though they are rather
>> conservatively invested, are intertwined with these 40-50 to 1
>> leveraged firms that are going down and are at risk of catastrophic
>> failure as a result.
>
>So that means - and I face this decision like so many others - we
>have to rebalance our retirement portfolios - now before the
>bottom falls out.

A lot of the damage has already been done there. And there is no
place to go except hard assets and cash and cash isn't safe. If the
big bucks flow out of equities and cost and availability of capital is
nil for those "adding value to something that is mined or grown", then
they go down, nobody has a job and nothing is worth anything. So the
government starts the priniting press and cash becomes worthless. And
when there is no one to sell anything to, hard assets don't have any
value.
>
>>
>> The time for the hard line was before the fact. The people you
>> describe as causative above will lose very little because they had no
>> skin in the game. Those living off of someone else will walk away
>> from their debt and continue to live off of somebody else. The greedy
>> evil corporate bankers and CEO's will get large severance packages,
>> and will complain at the country club that if it had held up they
>> would be far richer. Politicians will continue to spin the truth and
>> get elected or, if not, join lobbying firms to lobby their
>> replacements.
>
>But, if we have bailout, we'll all be paying to *perpetuate* what you've
>just described.
>
>>
>> But hundreds of millions described above, who had nothing to do with
>> the cause, will suffer greatly. It is true that if nothing is done,
>> they won't have to worry about paying to bail either party out, if
>> this thing spirals down as modeled by a number of economists, they
>> won't have enough assets and income to pay taxes to do so.
>>
>> My thoughts.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>
>You are - I think - right, up to a point. The problem is that there
>is *no* fix. The most the government can do is delay the inevitable.
>This whole mess starts and ends with business, individuals, and government
>living in economic fantasyland. Trying to buy our way out of it now
>with tax money will fix nothing. It will weaken the dollar and cause
>a consequent increase in oil prices. When government interdicts and
>distorts markets, no good thing comes from it. We need to get back
>to "Root, hog, or die" as did our forefathers.


The fix is to prevent complete collapse, then gradually move in the
other direction in an orderly fashion. That direction would be
limited government, limited taxation, rewarded personal
responsibility, regulatory action to only prevent fraud, deception, or
outright illegal behavior.

Problem is, we may have gone too far to get back. We have attained a
weird sort of government and economy that has creeping socialism on
one end and those in favor of and reaping the benefits of that have
allowed a sort of reckless captialism on the other end to fund it.
Even though the game is all but over, nobody is going to give up their
position if they don't have to.

Jimbo wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2:22 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jimbo wrote:
>>> (snip to)
>>>> No. The private sector will revitalize the economy unless the
>>>> various flavors of neo-communists in government, the general
>>>> population, and even the business community insist on collectivizing
>>>> that which should be private. Politicians do not "fix" economies.
>>>> They merely damage economies, some more, some less.
>>> What private sector? The one that has been totally discredited for
>>> bring the US and maybe even the world economy to it's very knees.
>>> This is the Regan legacy come home to roost.
>> You are deeply confused. The market and the economy are different
>> entities and the economy is fundamentally sound. It is the market
>> that needs correcting, and so it is. The market will now do - in
>> one very painful and short period - what should have been going
>> on incrementally over the years: correct inefficiencies and bad
>> choices out of existence. Unless, of course, the various communists
>> in government have their way to try and defy Reality by
>> passing more laws and giving away more money they do not actually
>> have.
>>
>> The Reagan legacy was sold out by the communist liberals and the
>> indifferent vote-grubbing, big spending neo-cons. This is what happens
>> when you do NOT honor free markets and use government to distort
>> markets to try and achieve financial fantasyland. No, this is
>> not a Reagan free market. It is a Marxist fantasy where all problems
>> can be resolved with the wave of the magic wand Comrade Obama and his
>> minions claim to have. They are fools and they are liars.
>
> I'm not at all confused but you are being overly pedantic. The
> economy is not sound; it has been distorted by those greedy bastards
> that are looking for a bail out today.

The economy did NOT get distorted today, because the Republicans
finally got something right and blocked the bailout.

>
> Also, your use of the words "Marxist" and "communist" and "liberal" is
> incorrect and contradictory.

All three terms - as commonly used to describe some point of view -
live on the exact same continuum. They are degrees of the same
pestilence...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Jimbo" wrote

> Love him or hate him, Obama represents the best chance the US has to
> raise itself out of the mess that Bush has either created or made
> worse (depending on where you believe it all started). Obama will
> bring a renewed status to the US on the international stage and his
> ideas will revitalize the US economy. Your delving into his history
> is irrelavant and backward looking. Remember, perception is reality.
> When Obama is elected - and I predict he will be by a large margin -
> the markets will sit back and wait to see who he brings into the
> Treasury. Then the economic resurgence will begin. This time it will
> be have a broader base and will improve the lives of more Americans
> than any time in recent history. I also predict a second term for him.

"na·ive" : marked by unaffected simplicity : deficient in worldly wisdom or
informed judgment.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Jimbo wrote:
> On Sep 25, 12:12 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>> Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
>>>> Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
>>>> Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
>>>> market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a loan
>>>> to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
>>>> re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out of
>>>> the problem they caused.
>>> And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
>>> it. After all, John McCain relies on his advice. And we all know he
>>> wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?
>> You mean like Comrade Obama and his cast of thugs here in
>> IL? (The Mayor, the Governor, two convicted felons - one
>> a 60s mad bomber and the other one Obama's real estate fairy.)
>>
>> "I'll take liberal hypocrisy for 500 Alex...."
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> Tim.
> If your arguments weren't so *strident* they might merit some
> discussion. As you present them, I read that you're a conservative
> bigot who will broach no discussion to the contrary.

I am neither a conservative nor a bigot. I am unapologetically
opposed to force, fraud, and threat. I live in IL and have seen
Obama for what he is locally. If he is elected it will not be
me who is disappointed - I already have very low expectations for
both him and McCain - It will be Obama's groupies who will get sold
out in acts of political expediency, no different than pretty
much everyone else who ever supported the man. I strongly urge
people to read the New Yorker article on Obama's rise to power
to just get a small taste of what a political bottomfeeder this
guy is.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Jimbo wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2:30 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jimbo wrote:
>>> On Sep 25, 12:12 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>>>> Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
>>>>>> Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
>>>>>> Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
>>>>>> market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a loan
>>>>>> to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
>>>>>> re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out of
>>>>>> the problem they caused.
>>>>> And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
>>>>> it. After all, John McCain relies on his advice. And we all know he
>>>>> wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?
>>>> You mean like Comrade Obama and his cast of thugs here in
>>>> IL? (The Mayor, the Governor, two convicted felons - one
>>>> a 60s mad bomber and the other one Obama's real estate fairy.)
>>>> "I'll take liberal hypocrisy for 500 Alex...."
>>>> --
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>>>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>> Tim.
>>> If your arguments weren't so *strident* they might merit some
>>> discussion. As you present them, I read that you're a conservative
>>> bigot who will broach no discussion to the contrary.
>> I am neither a conservative nor a bigot. I am unapologetically
>> opposed to force, fraud, and threat. I live in IL and have seen
>> Obama for what he is locally. If he is elected it will not be
>> me who is disappointed - I already have very low expectations for
>> both him and McCain - It will be Obama's groupies who will get sold
>> out in acts of political expediency, no different than pretty
>> much everyone else who ever supported the man. I strongly urge
>> people to read the New Yorker article on Obama's rise to power
>> to just get a small taste of what a political bottomfeeder this
>> guy is.
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> Tim.
> Love him or hate him, Obama represents the best chance the US has to
> raise itself out of the mess that Bush has either created or made
> worse (depending on where you believe it all started). Obama will

Disagree strongly. He is a political snakeoil salesman with no
real legislative record and a long history of bad associations,
and political double dealing.

> bring a renewed status to the US on the international stage and his
> ideas will revitalize the US economy. Your delving into his history

No. The private sector will revitalize the economy unless the
various flavors of neo-communists in government, the general
population, and even the business community insist on collectivizing
that which should be private. Politicians do not "fix" economies.
They merely damage economies, some more, some less.


> is irrelavant and backward looking. Remember, perception is reality.
> When Obama is elected - and I predict he will be by a large margin -
> the markets will sit back and wait to see who he brings into the
> Treasury. Then the economic resurgence will begin. This time it will
> be have a broader base and will improve the lives of more Americans
> than any time in recent history. I also predict a second term for him.

You are likely right about his election - very sadly. Then again,
a nation that has lived with economic fiction, force, and all that
accompanies socialism for some 70 years, doesn't deserve to be
all that well off. Obama will get elected and when he leaves office,
he will leave a chain of high taxes, nationalized businesses, and
a further erosion of the original American ideal of personal liberty.

Viva Obama, Viva Marx


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

NuWave Dave wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : Perhaps you can help me out here, I'm not yet fully up on my Book of
> : Obama: Does all of the above happen before or after he lowers the
> ocean
> : levels and heals the sick?
> : If, by some chance our country is punished with an Obama presidency,
> it is
> : more likely we will finally experience that Jimmy Carter second term
> that
> : we missed in the 80's.
>
> How in hell could anyone be worse than the dipshit we've had in the
> White House for the last eight years?
>
> Dave in Houston
>

Stick around and watch. If Comrade Obama (PBUH) is elected, you're
going to be begging for W to come back...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
>> Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
>> Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
>> market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a loan
>> to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
>> re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out of
>> the problem they caused.
>
> And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
> it. After all, John McCain relies on his advice. And we all know he
> wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?
>

You mean like Comrade Obama and his cast of thugs here in
IL? (The Mayor, the Governor, two convicted felons - one
a 60s mad bomber and the other one Obama's real estate fairy.)

"I'll take liberal hypocrisy for 500 Alex...."

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Han wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> The core of the crisis was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for setting
>> the loan
>> standards so low that those swap agreements and hybrid instruments
>> contained loans to people with no chance of paying them back. This
>> was done at the direction of Congress who demanded an end to
>> "redlining" and the availability of "affordable mortgages" to more
>> people. At its height, it was possible for people to walk in and get
>> a loan with no down payment and not even have proof of employment.
>
> The real core of the problem is not the direction of Congress so much as
> the implementation. Isn't it the fiduciary duty of banks etc to protect
> their depositors' and stockholders' "investments? Then they (the banks and
> investment firms) should have NOT invested in dubious loans and Ponzi
> schemes of insurance thereon. The fault of Congress is only in not
> insuring that there was proper oversight and regulation of the Ponzi
> schemes and 120% of value mortgages.
>
> Don't blame attempts to increase home ownership and responsibility for
> irresponsible acts by greedy banks, investment and insurance firms, as well
> as corrupt ratings agencies. (Not saying that F&F are blameless).
>

So ... the banks are "irresponsible" and "greedy" for trying to maximize
their profits. But the welfare queens who already were living off
of everyone else's money are noble? The government is as responsible
for this mess as the banks. So are the people who borrowed money for
homes they could not actually afford. It's just convenient to blame
the eeeeeeeeeeevil rich people because the slimy left has so ingrained
class warfare in the public mind. The best thing we could do here
would be *nothing*. Let all the participants in this fiasco reap what
the sowed. Let the irresponsible banks go under. Let the irresponsible
borrowers loose their homes and equity. Why should I have to pay
to bail either party out?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"NuWave Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : Perhaps you can help me out here, I'm not yet fully up on my Book of
> : Obama: Does all of the above happen before or after he lowers the
> ocean
> : levels and heals the sick?
> : If, by some chance our country is punished with an Obama presidency,
> it is
> : more likely we will finally experience that Jimmy Carter second term
> that
> : we missed in the 80's.
>
> How in hell could anyone be worse than the dipshit we've had in the
> White House for the last eight years?
>
> Dave in Houston

I imagine a similar sentiment being uttered about this time in 1976. Just
wait. It can always be worse. But I can already hear it. Anything good
that happens will be because of Obama, and anything bad will have been
Bush's fault.

todd

<SNIP>

>
> Problem is, we may have gone too far to get back. We have attained a
> weird sort of government and economy that has creeping socialism on
> one end and those in favor of and reaping the benefits of that have

It's not "creeping". We have leapt into the socialist sewer on
virtually every front given almost any opportunity. It is ironic
that Comrade Obama has admitted he may have to give up his
communist health insurance ambitions to make room for the socialist
economic bailout. Evil begets evil.

> allowed a sort of reckless captialism on the other end to fund it.

Well, the problem is that it wasn't really free market capitalism at
all. It was more like oligarchic capitalism in which the largest
center of money in the private sector took profit when it appeared (as
they should), but laid off the risk and losses to the taxpayer
whenever possible (which should never have happened). This is not a
free market economy, it's a con game. This doesn't stop the Obama
communists from claiming that this was a "failure of the free market".
It was no such thing and they know it, but like all collectivists, at
their heart, they are liars.

Pretty much every left government in the past 100 years has
participated, but so have a good many of the the so-called right
governments. I note with disdain that the airlines got protection from
the Bush administration in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 even though
their problems long predated this, for instance. Why? Because the
sheeple howled that they had a "right" to a "fair" price. Just like
Clinton told them they have a "right" to housing. Just like Comrade Obama
invents a "right" to healthcare and so forth. In my very jaundiced (I
admit) view, it is this body of invented and fictitious rights
promised the sheeple that actually paved the way for the taxocrats and
the oligarchs to pillage the country's coffers, private and public.

Maybe you're right, we need to find a softer landing for now. But on
the other side of that, as you say, we need and immediate return to
limited government, individual responsibility, and self-sufficiency.
Every time some drooling ideologue insists on using tax money to
"help" people, we need to point out that this was a large part of what
led us to the meltdowns of 2008 ...


> Even though the game is all but over, nobody is going to give up their
> position if they don't have to.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Jimbo wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jimbo wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> Comparing Obama to Carter doesn't really make a lot sense to me.
>>> Maybe its an age thing :)
>> One is a Southern communist, the other one is an urban communist.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges: Obama will be a beacon
>>> for democracy (small d - not the party) in the US and the world. His
>> You mean by meeting with Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Hezbolla,
>> and Hamas?
>>
>>> acceptance will be widespread and will include the disenfranchised.
>> Where "disenfranchised" = "everyone who wants something that does not
>> legitimately belong to them".
>>
>>> He will try to lower the ocean level by joining with the rest of the
>>> developed world and trying to do something positive about climate
>>> change.
>> I hope he starts - if elected - by walking everywhere and eschewing
>> the use of all technology that is supposedly causing this imaginary
>> bugaboo of yours.
>>
>> This should actually bring the US to a leadership position in
>>
>>> R&D, manufacture and use of alternative energy sources. He will heal
>> Yes, by passing laws to make the economy work better on the command
>> of congress, no doubt.
>>
>>> the sick by improving medicare. You have so much to look forward to
>>> over the next eight years. It's going to be great.
>> I thought he was going to heal the sick via miracles as he walked on
>> water.
>
> So now you're suggesting that climate change is an "imaginary
> bugaboo"?

Oh, some level of warming is inarguably happening. However,
claiming (without proof) it is: a) Manmade, b) Can be fixed by man, and c) Demonstrably bad for mankind is the bugaboo.

> And what is wrong with meeting "Chavez, Ahmadinejad,
> Castro, Hezbolla, and Hamas"? Is that not a good thing?

They are evil despots and/or tin pot dictators. The only
"meeting" with them should be, a) To warn them of what happens
if they don't knock of their vile behavior and b) A "meeting"
with out military as appropriate, and, finally, c) A meeting
to accept their absolute acquiescence to our terms.

> Name me a
> President or Presidential candidate who did not meet with questionable
> people at some stage in their candidacy or term of office.

It is true that FDR met with Stalin .. then again FDR was a socialist
so far left that he had little to distinguish himself from full
blown communism.

You'll note that Truman didn't even show up to accept Japan's surrender
(or Germany's for that matter). Kennedy never met with Castro as best
I can recall, and so forth.

Yes, there are counterexamples, and I stipulate that meeting with
the bad guys is sometimes (rarely) a good thing. But Comrade Obama
has made it clear he'd meet with the aforementioned murderous slime
*without preconditions*. Like I keep saying, he is the worst kind
of political vermin. It is astonishing he has any traction at all
in this election let alone a credible chance of winning. It demonstrates
what incredible short term vision and attention the voters have, nothing
more.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Lew Hodgett wrote:

> The subject takes me back to 1960, a few weeks before graduation.
>
> Was in an industrial engineering class, the instructor had spent a
> lifetime in the real world, and up to then, not much in the class
> room.
>
> The subject of the Edsel, the 1958 FoMoCo screw up, the largest
> business screw up since the Curtis-Wright mess of 1940, was brought up
> for discussion.
>
> Still remember the instructors advice:
>
> Class, if you are going to screw up, make it as big as possible.
>
> They fire you for making small mistakes.
>
> They won't fire you if the mistake is big enough because that will
> make the guy who hired you look like an idiot.
>
> Almost 50 years later, sounds like there is about to be a repeat
> application of that advice.
>
> Lew

Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a loan
to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out of
the problem they caused.

Talk about the ultimate promotion.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robatoy wrote:
<SNIP>

>>
>>> Also, your use of the words "Marxist" and "communist" and "liberal" is
>>> incorrect and contradictory.
>> All three terms - as commonly used to describe some point of view -
>> live on the exact same continuum. They are degrees of the same
>> pestilence...
>>
> That's just glib. You know better than that.
>

All three are forms of collectivism in which the power of the group
is used to take away from the individual. They are - all three of them -
variations of the same mindset implemented in varying degrees.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

> Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
> Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
> Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
> market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a loan
> to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
> re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out of
> the problem they caused.

And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
it. After all, John McCain relies on his advice. And we all know he
wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: Perhaps you can help me out here, I'm not yet fully up on my Book of
: Obama: Does all of the above happen before or after he lowers the
ocean
: levels and heals the sick?
: If, by some chance our country is punished with an Obama presidency,
it is
: more likely we will finally experience that Jimmy Carter second term
that
: we missed in the 80's.

How in hell could anyone be worse than the dipshit we've had in the
White House for the last eight years?

Dave in Houston

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:36:42 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Han wrote:
>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> The core of the crisis was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for setting
>>> the loan
>>> standards so low that those swap agreements and hybrid instruments
>>> contained loans to people with no chance of paying them back. This
>>> was done at the direction of Congress who demanded an end to
>>> "redlining" and the availability of "affordable mortgages" to more
>>> people. At its height, it was possible for people to walk in and get
>>> a loan with no down payment and not even have proof of employment.
>>
>> The real core of the problem is not the direction of Congress so much as
>> the implementation. Isn't it the fiduciary duty of banks etc to protect
>> their depositors' and stockholders' "investments? Then they (the banks and
>> investment firms) should have NOT invested in dubious loans and Ponzi
>> schemes of insurance thereon. The fault of Congress is only in not
>> insuring that there was proper oversight and regulation of the Ponzi
>> schemes and 120% of value mortgages.
>>
>> Don't blame attempts to increase home ownership and responsibility for
>> irresponsible acts by greedy banks, investment and insurance firms, as well
>> as corrupt ratings agencies. (Not saying that F&F are blameless).
>>
>
>So ... the banks are "irresponsible" and "greedy" for trying to maximize
>their profits.

Yes, if they did it by leveraging 40-50 to one and knew the risk
factors. Watched some interviews yesterday with some CEO's of smaller
banks and investement firms that are leveraged 3-4 to one and they are
doing just fine, return on assets very repectable.

> But the welfare queens who already were living off
>of everyone else's money are noble? The government is as responsible
>for this mess as the banks. So are the people who borrowed money for
>homes they could not actually afford.

agreed.

> It's just convenient to blame
>the eeeeeeeeeeevil rich people because the slimy left has so ingrained
>class warfare in the public mind.

agreed. The responsible rich did not cause this.

> The best thing we could do here
>would be *nothing*. Let all the participants in this fiasco reap what
>the sowed. Let the irresponsible banks go under. Let the irresponsible
>borrowers loose their homes and equity. Why should I have to pay
>to bail either party out?

Better think this one through. So I make my 20% down payment, get a
fixed interest rate, live frugally so that I can pay off my mortgage,
live my life debt free, often denying myself and family things because
I don't want debt, save religiously, make it to retirement oblivious
of the fact that my pension fund and 401K, even though they are rather
conservatively invested, are intertwined with these 40-50 to 1
leveraged firms that are going down and are at risk of catastrophic
failure as a result.

The time for the hard line was before the fact. The people you
describe as causative above will lose very little because they had no
skin in the game. Those living off of someone else will walk away
from their debt and continue to live off of somebody else. The greedy
evil corporate bankers and CEO's will get large severance packages,
and will complain at the country club that if it had held up they
would be far richer. Politicians will continue to spin the truth and
get elected or, if not, join lobbying firms to lobby their
replacements.

But hundreds of millions described above, who had nothing to do with
the cause, will suffer greatly. It is true that if nothing is done,
they won't have to worry about paying to bail either party out, if
this thing spirals down as modeled by a number of economists, they
won't have enough assets and income to pay taxes to do so.

My thoughts.

Frank

Jimbo wrote:
> On Sep 29, 4:45 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Also, your use of the words "Marxist" and "communist" and "liberal" is
>>>>> incorrect and contradictory.
>>>> All three terms - as commonly used to describe some point of view -
>>>> live on the exact same continuum. They are degrees of the same
>>>> pestilence...
>>> That's just glib. You know better than that.
>> All three are forms of collectivism in which the power of the group
>> is used to take away from the individual. They are - all three of them -
>> variations of the same mindset implemented in varying degrees.
>
> This is a ridiculous over-simplification - kind of like suggesting

It is an entirely accurate taxonomy. I'm sorry it hurts your feelings,
but this is what you are supporting.

> that all Republicans are Fascists.
>

Most Republicans are also collectivists at some level.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Maxwell Lol wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> So ... the banks are "irresponsible" and "greedy" for trying to maximize
>> their profits. But the welfare queens who already were living off
>> of everyone else's money are noble?
>
> AIG was $579 billion in debt.
>
> The CEO of AIG made 5.6 million which included a "performance bonus."
> for ruining the company.
>
> Total US welfare costs are $440 million per year.
>
> Blaiming the problem is those on welfare is really misguided and
> and frankly bigoted.

You must have trouble with elementary arithmetic. Of the
$3 Trillion US Federal budget (never mind State and Local), over
*half* is entitlement spending - welfare in all it's forms - by
my count, that's north of $1.5 *Trillion* - you're missing a lot of
zeros.

And it's only bigoted if you have to look in every nook and cranny
to find bigotry and make yourself feel better. The overwhelming
portion of the $1.5 trillion goes to elders in some form - who, last
I checked, cover all flavors of race, religion, and so forth.

What is "bigoted", is the bigotry displayed here and in the larger
culture against those of us who object to being made slaves to serve
the dishonest and lazy majority.

>
> By the way - have you ever talked to anyone on Welfare? Like those

Yes. I used to live next door to them. It's what made me realize
what a complete scam social entitlements are.

> people still living in FEMA trailers that have 5 times the normal
> level of Formaldehyde gas? I bet they feel like queens. Sure.

Perhaps they shouldn't have built homes below sea level in the first
place. Perhaps they shouldn't have elected the (arguably) most
corrupt government in the entire nation in NOLA. Perhaps - after a
major disaster - they shouldn't insist on living the same place again.
And, perhaps, they shouldn't expect their Federal rehabilitation to
give them a quality of life *better* than they ever had in the first
place. The entire system is a fraud.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Renata wrote:

> These, of course, had nothing to do with anything...
> Renata
>
>
>
> " Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 ...
> ...By preventing mergers between the various branches of Wall Street,
> ...[this] act reversed basic Depression-era legislation passed to
> prevent the sort of collapse we are now experiencing.
>
> Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
> ...legitimized the "swap agreements" and other "hybrid instruments"
> that are at the core of the crisis.
>

The core of the crisis was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for setting the loan
standards so low that those swap agreements and hybrid instruments
contained loans to people with no chance of paying them back. This was
done at the direction of Congress who demanded an end to "redlining" and
the availability of "affordable mortgages" to more people. At its height,
it was possible for people to walk in and get a loan with no down payment
and not even have proof of employment.


> "Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000," Title IV of the
> law--a law that Gramm snuck in without hearings hours before the
> Christmas recess--provided Wall Street with an unbridled license to
> steal. It made certain that financiers could legally get away with a
> whole new array of financial rip-off schemes.
>
> One of those provisions, summarized by the heading of Title III,
> ensured the "Legal Certainty for Swap Agreements," which successfully
> divorced the granters of subprime mortgage loans from any obligation
> to ever collect on them. That provision of Gramm's law is at the very
> heart of the problem.
> But the law went even further, prohibiting regulation of any of the
> new financial instruments permitted after the financial industry
> mergers: "No provision of the Commodity Exchange Act shall apply to,
> and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall not exercise
> regulatory authority with respect to, an identified banking product
> which had not been commonly offered, entered into, or provided in the
> United States by any bank on or before December 5, 2000. ..."
> from an article by Robert Scheer
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>
>>> The subject takes me back to 1960, a few weeks before graduation.
>>>
>>> Was in an industrial engineering class, the instructor had spent a
>>> lifetime in the real world, and up to then, not much in the class
>>> room.
>>>
>>> The subject of the Edsel, the 1958 FoMoCo screw up, the largest
>>> business screw up since the Curtis-Wright mess of 1940, was brought up
>>> for discussion.
>>>
>>> Still remember the instructors advice:
>>>
>>> Class, if you are going to screw up, make it as big as possible.
>>>
>>> They fire you for making small mistakes.
>>>
>>> They won't fire you if the mistake is big enough because that will
>>> make the guy who hired you look like an idiot.
>>>
>>> Almost 50 years later, sounds like there is about to be a repeat
>>> application of that advice.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>
>> Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
>>Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
>>Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
>>market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a
>>loan to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
>>re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out
>>of the problem they caused.
>>
>> Talk about the ultimate promotion.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:32 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Yep, despite the fact that the congress-critters like Barney Frank and
>> Chris "Country-wide" Dodd caused the problem by using Fannie Mae and
>> Freddie Mac as their own playground to essentially socialize the mortgage
>> market by setting standards so low that just about anybody could get a
>> loan to buy a house, these congress-critters are going to continue get
>> re-elected and now get even more taxpayer money to "manage" the bail-out
>> of the problem they caused.
>
> And of course Phil Gramm couldn't possibly have had anything to do with
> it. After all, John McCain relies on his advice. And we all know he
> wouldn't associate with a crooked politician, would he?

It is debateable that the repeal of the Glass-Steigal act had anything to
do with this. After all, it really didn't matter whether brokerage houses
or banks were the ones getting this toxic waste from Freddie Mac and Fannie
Mae.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough