If you had one million one-dollar bills and stood on a street corner giving
them away at the rate of one per minute, it would take you three years to
get rid of them all at 24 hours per day. To give away a billion of them
would take 3,000 years. A TRILLION would take you THREE MILLION YEARS.
http://tinyurl.com/cbcxc3
Upscale wrote:
> "Keith Nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>
> Tell me the truth. You're one of Timbit's relatives aren't you?
>
>> How about the obama effect, 30% decrease in the stock markets since he
>> was elected, instead of the 10% rise that has happened for every
>> presidential election for the last century except two other democrats;
>> Carter, and Wilson?
>
> The man was elected right at the beginning of an increasing, serious
He was elected near the *END* of a recession wherein it is reasonable to
expect improvement (the average recovery from recession is something like
18-24 months). The Obamfuhrer is actually *lengthening* the recession
with his idiot policies.
> recession and you expect a stock increase? If you're going to argue about
> some topic that has absolutely nothing to do with woodworking, at least make
> *some* attempt to argue it intelligently.
This coming from someone who's entire rhetorical range consists of
fulminating, personal attacks, and whining...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
CW wrote:
> I rebuilt my system recently and thought I had gotten everything back the
> way it was supposed to be. Apparently not everything, I forgot to put you
> back in the bozo bin. I'll correct that now. Bye.
It means so much to me that you took the time to let me know.
I'll sleep better now.
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
DGDevin wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
>> a mere few weeks to do so...
>
> So how long did it take from the final version of the $700 billion TARP bill
> being passed by Congress until Bush signed it? I'll save you the trouble of
> looking it up, it was a matter of a few hours.
>
>
Yup, just as bad.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
> a mere few weeks to do so...
So how long did it take from the final version of the $700 billion TARP bill
being passed by Congress until Bush signed it? I'll save you the trouble of
looking it up, it was a matter of a few hours.
DGDevin wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
>> a mere few weeks to do so...
>
> So how long did it take from the final version of the $700 billion TARP bill
> being passed by Congress until Bush signed it? I'll save you the trouble of
> looking it up, it was a matter of a few hours.
And lest anyone forget, the list of yea and nay votes in both houses is
still at
http://www.iedu.com/Documents/Bailout2008.txt
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Perry Aynum wrote:
> If "tundraware" is your company, you're probably scaring customers away with
> your postings. Who would want to do business with someone who thinks like
> you?
>
>
Rational, thoughtful people that are just as sick of the culture of
stealing and mooching that has invaded Western democracies as I am,
that's who.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Mar 12, 12:51=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1D1OT wrote:
> > If you had one million one-dollar bills and stood on a street corner gi=
ving
> > them away at the rate of one per minute, it would take you three years =
to
> > get rid of them all at 24 hours per day. To give away a billion of them
> > would take 3,000 years. A TRILLION would take you THREE MILLION YEARS.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/cbcxc3
>
> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
> a mere few weeks to do so...
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
I think you have a secret crush on Nancy, Tim.
On Mar 13, 2:54=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > Heck no! They're bankers because they like us and wish us well. If
> > there was a way for them to make us all happy without them making a
> > penny, they would do so.
>
> > I can not even TRY to entertain your hypotheticals without breaking
> > out. First into a sweat, then into uncontrollable laughter.
>
> Maybe the tinfoil hat is causing some sort of short to the synapses
> in whatever part of your brain that controls hysteria. =A0 =A0:-p
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> =A0 --
> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> =A0 [email protected]
> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Okay, I'm sorry. I will pretend Mark's hypothetical scenario is
rational.
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> demonstrated a disturbing tendency in the past decade of being
>> disingenuous and outright deceitful in some cases when reporting
>> things that require the use of numbers.
>
> You might as well be talking about yourself. Considering how you post
> absolutely zero in the way of woodworking content, it's obvious your only
> purpose here is to troll. And, when some topic doesn't attract sufficient
> numbers, you don't hesitate obfuscate a fact or topic to cause further
> controversy.
>
>
Well, I'm at least talking to you ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> This whole notion that somehow greedy bankers were the root cause of
> this disaster is laughably absurd.
No, it is not--greedy bankers don't get *all* the blame but they certainly
deserve plenty of it. I watched interviews with former employees of S&P who
admitted their company rated securities that were so far outside their
computer models that the ratings amounted to blind guesses. But they
weren't about to refuse to rate these securities because they were worth an
average of half a million bucks each to S&P. So securities packed with
rotten mortgages went out the door rated AAA purely because it was
profitable to do so--care to explain how that was the fault of Congress?
And if there was no problem with these securities why did those selling them
feel the need to in effect insure them? Of course nobody called it that
because then they would have needed cash on hand to cover the insurance, and
they didn't have that--so Credit Default Swaps were born. That's why AIG is
in such trouble, they created a whole new division whose only job was
insuring financial instruments. Does it make sense to you that AIG *knew*
they were insuring securities full of mortgages that would default, or is it
more likely the investment firms that cooked up the rotten securities were
gambling on an eternally hot housing market and AIG was dumb (and greedy)
enough to cover that bet?
The financial industry went on a decade-long bender. Since there was nobody
to stop them they invented more and more bizarre ways to make more and more
money, there just wasn't an adult in the room to turn off the music and call
an end to the party.
> Taking for the moment, the notion
> that bankers and investment firms are greedy SOBs only out for fiscal
> gain. It defies logic how any of these people, absent external
> coercion, would get together and say, "Hey, I've got an idea for more
> loan money! Let's start making loans to people we know won't be able
> to pay them back. But what we'll do, we'll take those loans, split
> them up into securities and sell the securities!" That doesn't even
> pass the laugh test.
And yet that's what happened, we know it happened because there are too many
people who tried to sound the alarm and were ignored, they're still there to
remind us. There is also a steady supply of former employees of banks and
other mortgage sellers reporting how they were encouraged to inflate incomes
and otherwise qualify people for loans they would never be able to
repay--are all these people lying about this? And it happened in part
because he who moved the most paper made the most money. How else to
explain a mortgage salesman who won bonus after bonus by signing up people
just released from prison even though most of them failed to make even the
first payment on their new house? I heard that straight from our CPA, but
maybe he just made it up huh?
Hey, if you want to see the banks and investment houses as innocent victims
in this (Madoff and Stanford are just aberrations), cool, have a good time
with that. I can't wait for the criminal prosecutions to really get going,
there's going to be a lot of former masters of the universe in the joint in
the next few years. Who knows, lock up enough of them and maybe their
replacements will run a straight game for a decade or so.
Keith Nuttle wrote:
> I suppose you can rationalize away the five days, no lobbyist, and
> other promises that have been broken.
I am disappointed that the Obama administration has failed to live up to
some of the promises made before the election, an example being the new No.
2 guy at the Pentagon being a former defense contractor lobbyist. I can't
believe he was the only person good enough for that job that they had to
waive the promise about pushing lobbyists away from the table in Washington.
Things like that suggest the new administration is discovering that
governing is somewhat more difficult than making promises.
> How about the obama effect, 30% decrease in the stock markets since
> he was elected, instead of the 10% rise that has happened for every
> presidential election for the last century except two other democrats;
> Carter, and Wilson?
The economy crashed while Bush was still in office, to imagine that a
catastrophe that widespread would magically reverse itself the day Obama was
sworn in is childish. If a ship ends up on the rocks the guy you want to
talk to is whoever was Captain when it happened, not his replacement after
the fact.
in 95232 20090312 062723 "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
>> a mere few weeks to do so...
>
>So how long did it take from the final version of the $700 billion TARP bill
>being passed by Congress until Bush signed it? I'll save you the trouble of
>looking it up, it was a matter of a few hours.
It's only money.
Though I suppose with a trillion here and a trillion there it soon starts to add up.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> DGDevin wrote:
>>
>>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ummm... Devin, I just read your other post. Come clean. You got that
>>>> off last night's news, didn't you? Did you even once open the cover
>>>> of a finance textbook?
>>> I've been following this story for awhile, the interviews done by shows
>>> like Frontline and even (brace yourself) 60 Minutes with people who were
>>> in the
>>> thick of it have been eye-opening. "The Devil made me do it" has never
>>> been an acceptable excuse to me, financial institutions that told their
>>> own employees to shut up and get with the program do not now get to
>>> claim really
>>> it's all the fault of Congress. Which is not to say Congress has no
>>> blame of course, taking away the rules was a big part of what went
>>> wrong, but then the banks lobbied for the rules to be removed, didn't
>>> they.
>>
>> Until your argument includes the CRA, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac loosening
>> of
>> credit rules to support "affordable housing" and includes Barney Frank,
>> Chris Countrywide Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelik, et al you have no
>> credibility by seeking to cast this blame solely upon the banking
>> industry.
>>
>>
>
> You're missing the point Mark. The establishment politicians (both Ds
> and many Rs) want this to be a problem in the private sector. Having
> corrupted capitalism with their malignant politics, they are now
> turning on it as the culprit to further solidify government control of
> ... well, pretty much everything.
>
Sigh. Yeah, I know. You forgot to include the fact that the main stream
media are happily going along with this charade, thus enabling the
demonization of the private sector. Unfortunately, true journalism is
dead, if it ever existed at all. The media just doesn't seem interested in
digging past what the majority party leadership is saying.
> The banks bears some blame, of course, but they are the third order
> effect here. The first order cause is a government not only deficit
> spending, but doing so at an acceleration greater than that of the GDP
> growth for decades. It is the public - the mooching, lazy, greedy,
> give-me-something-for-nothing sheeple that are at the heart of this
> problem. They are the ones instructing the government - indeed
> *demanding* - to give them "free" stuff.
>
While what you say is mostly true, the fact that there are politicians who
are not only willing, but eager to pander to this sector has led us to this
point.
> No one can fix this until and unless individual citizens decide that
> being self-reliant and personally responsible are important values.
> Given that about half the population is now picking up some- or all of
> the tab for the other half, this seems unlikely.
When that number reaches less than half paying the freight for more than
half, the tipping point will have been reached. The 51+% of those not
paying will insist on more and more from the 49-% paying the bill. They
will be able to accomplish this through their majority in the ballot box.
Eventually, the 49-% will throw up *their* hands and stop the effort to
excel. That will lead to a tightening downward spiral. Evidence of this is
already to be seen: people leaving California because of onerous taxes that
are being assessed to pay for those not working and benefits for illegals.
In New York City, roughly 40,000 people are paying the bulk of taxes for
the city. The mayor has come out opposing increasing taxes for fear that
those 40k people will decide enough is enough and leave the city for some
place that will allow them to keep more of the fruits of their labors.
> Even here, among
> people generally known for their creativity and hard work, you've seen
> screaming when it's suggest that everyone is responsible for
> themselves. I've been called selfish, greedy, and worse for insisting
> that people take care of themselves or appeal to private charity
> rather than using the government's gun to make other citizens pick up
> the tab.
>
> Our descent into hell continues with Obamamessiah as the locomotive
> engineer ...
>
>
>
>
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 12, 8:37 am, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>> DGDevin wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
>>>> a mere few weeks to do so...
>>> So how long did it take from the final version of the $700 billion TARP bill
>>> being passed by Congress until Bush signed it? I'll save you the trouble of
>>> looking it up, it was a matter of a few hours.
>> And how many hours did it take obama to sign the pelosi pork bill? Did
>> you notice that this last 400+ billion spending bill obama hid in his
>> office?
>>
>> To paraphrased what he said: I plan to eliminate earmark spending and
>> will give the American people 5 days to review any spending bill before
>> I sign it.
>>
>> One of many promises already broken.
>
> He never said that, that kind of paraphrasing is misleading. That was
> McCain who talked about eliminating pork. Obama pledged to "reform
> pork" spending.
> 25 out of 28 recipients of pork in the last bill were Repuglicans.
> Try to get it right.
I suppose you can rationalize away the five days, no lobbyist, and other
promises that have been broken.
How about the obama effect, 30% decrease in the stock markets since he
was elected, instead of the 10% rise that has happened for every
presidential election for the last century except two other democrats;
Carter, and Wilson?
I rebuilt my system recently and thought I had gotten everything back the
way it was supposed to be. Apparently not everything, I forgot to put you
back in the bozo bin. I'll correct that now. Bye.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Mar 12, 8:37=A0am, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> >> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
> >> a mere few weeks to do so...
>
> > So how long did it take from the final version of the $700 billion TARP=
bill
> > being passed by Congress until Bush signed it? =A0I'll save you the tro=
uble of
> > looking it up, it was a matter of a few hours.
>
> And how many hours did it take obama to sign the pelosi pork bill? =A0Did
> you notice that this last 400+ billion spending bill obama hid in his
> office?
>
> To paraphrased what he said: I plan to eliminate earmark spending and
> will give the American people 5 days to review any spending bill before
> I sign it.
>
> One of many promises already broken.
He never said that, that kind of paraphrasing is misleading. That was
McCain who talked about eliminating pork. Obama pledged to "reform
pork" spending.
25 out of 28 recipients of pork in the last bill were Repuglicans.
Try to get it right.
On Mar 13, 1:35=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> =A0 This whole notion that somehow greedy bankers were the root cause of =
this
> disaster is laughably absurd. =A0Taking for the moment, the notion that
> bankers and investment firms are greedy SOBs only out for fiscal gain. =
=A0
Heck no! They're bankers because they like us and wish us well. If
there was a way for them to make us all happy without them making a
penny, they would do so.
I can not even TRY to entertain your hypotheticals without breaking
out. First into a sweat, then into uncontrollable laughter.
I would like a referral to your drug dealer, Mark.
On Mar 16, 2:37=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > =A0Until your argument includes the CRA, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
> > loosening of credit rules to support "affordable housing" and
> > includes Barney Frank, Chris Countrywide Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jamie
> > Gorelik, et al you have no credibility by seeking to cast this blame
> > solely upon the banking industry.
>
> Please quote me seeking to cast blame solely on the banking industry.
>
> <crickets>
>
> I would have thought, "Greedy bankers don't get *all* the blame but they
> certainly deserve plenty of it" indicated I didn't exclusively blame the
> financial industry. =A0And frankly until your argument includes the reckl=
ess
> greed of that industry as part of the equation then your own credibility =
is
> less than you might imagine. =A0Did you happen to see Bernanke interviewe=
d on
> 60 Minutes last night? =A0PhD in Economics from MIT, appointed Chairman o=
f the
> fed by Bush--he referred in plain language to the reckless gambling
> companies like AIG indulged in, is he talking through his hat?
>
> If the situation weren't so serious it might be amusing to watch the
> ideologues of the left and right blaming each other for the economic
> meltdown, unfortunately the situation is damn serious and unlikely to
> improve much for years IMO.
Revealed by US Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. from Minnesota
before the US Congress sometime during his term of office between the
years of 1907 and 1917 to warn the citizens.
"We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made,
for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless
commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently
yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated
that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized
resistance. The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in
the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and
we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our
interest or disrupt them.
At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men
must attend and direct its movement, or else there will be set on foot
such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This
at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such
a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through
combination ( conspiracy) and legislation.
The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds
and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.
When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their
homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the
influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central
power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers.
People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.
History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known
among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of
the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a
state of political antagonism.
The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization
known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the
reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.
By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in
fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to
the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has
been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."
Revealed by Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. to the U.S. Congress
sometime between 1907 and 1917.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
All of us outside the castle walls are harvested for our efforts.
Time for a Tea Party.
DGDevin wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>
>>> The economy crashed while Bush was still in office, to imagine that a
>>> catastrophe that widespread would magically reverse itself the day
>>> Obama was sworn in is childish. If a ship ends up on the rocks the
>>> guy you want to talk to is whoever was Captain when it happened, not
>>> his replacement after the fact.
>>>
>>
>> Keep going back. You have Clinton and Barney Frank to thank.
>
> Yup, Clinton signed a couple of bills (passed by a Republican-controlled
> Congress) that directly facilitated the financial collapse by loosening
> regulation of the banks, he still defends doing so to this day too. Of
> course that doesn't mean the next administration gets a pass from failing
> to
> recognize what was happening. None of the bastards wanted to call an end
> to the party no matter how wild it got, so long as the market was going up
> they
> chose to look the other way. You'd think the Great Crash of 1929 would
> have taught us to avoid this sort of unregulated speculatory greed, but
> apparently not. I'm no fan of big government, but at the point where my
> tax dollars are being used to rescue giant banks run by morons who gambled
> and lost (and paid themselves multi-million-dollar bonuses even as their
> companies crumbled around them), I want the sonsofbitches forced to play
> by
> rules that will keep it from happening again. Time for some
> re-regulation, we tried it the other way and look what it got us.
Any argument that fails to cite the CRA and the impact of community
organizers threatening legal and civil action against banks is missing the
root cause of the problem. During the Clinton administration, the Reno
justice department threatened prosecution of banks whose lending practices
in certain neighborhoods did not meet their quotas (numerous links to this
can be found using ask.com with the search criteria "janet reno justice
department prosecution banks lending minority" The Bush administration
tried 11 times to reform Fredie Mac/Fannie Mae oversight and was demonized
by the media and people like Barney Frank as being bigots and racists
because those entities were just fine while they continued to lower lending
standards to the point that welfare payments were considered OK to use as
income for loan qualification.
This whole notion that somehow greedy bankers were the root cause of this
disaster is laughably absurd. Taking for the moment, the notion that
bankers and investment firms are greedy SOBs only out for fiscal gain. It
defies logic how any of these people, absent external coercion, would get
together and say, "Hey, I've got an idea for more loan money! Let's start
making loans to people we know won't be able to pay them back. But what
we'll do, we'll take those loans, split them up into securities and sell
the securities!" That doesn't even pass the laugh test. A rational person
would agree that the more likely scenario is a group of bankers getting
together and saying, "OK, we're gonna have huge legal and regulatory issues
if we don't start making these sub-prime loans. Any one of our banks is
going to go down in flames if the risk is upon only banks in high-risk
areas. Let's spread the risk around by diluting what we know will be bad
loans with good ones, that way, the losses will be spread and hopefully
everyone will be able to stay afloat and remain profitable". The only
thing not taken into account was the continued lowering of standards by
Fannie/Freddie and the demand-loop that increased housing prices beyond
rational. Then, when the bubble did eventually burst, those sub-prime
problems were magnified because the cost of all housing had been driven up.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Well, I'm at least talking to you ...
If you consider my messages to you "talking", then you're a masochist. As
far as I'm concerned, it's open season on you and anything you post.
Apparently, you like it that way.
Keith Nuttle wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
>>> a mere few weeks to do so...
>>
>> So how long did it take from the final version of the $700 billion
>> TARP bill being passed by Congress until Bush signed it? I'll save
>> you the trouble of looking it up, it was a matter of a few hours.
>>
> And how many hours did it take obama to sign the pelosi pork bill? Did
> you notice that this last 400+ billion spending bill obama hid in his
> office?
>
> To paraphrased what he said: I plan to eliminate earmark spending and
> will give the American people 5 days to review any spending bill before
> I sign it.
>
> One of many promises already broken.
You mean the Obamessiah is a scummy political liar? Say it ain't so.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> demonstrated a disturbing tendency in the past decade of being
> disingenuous and outright deceitful in some cases when reporting
> things that require the use of numbers.
You might as well be talking about yourself. Considering how you post
absolutely zero in the way of woodworking content, it's obvious your only
purpose here is to troll. And, when some topic doesn't attract sufficient
numbers, you don't hesitate obfuscate a fact or topic to cause further
controversy.
"Keith Nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
Tell me the truth. You're one of Timbit's relatives aren't you?
> How about the obama effect, 30% decrease in the stock markets since he
> was elected, instead of the 10% rise that has happened for every
> presidential election for the last century except two other democrats;
> Carter, and Wilson?
The man was elected right at the beginning of an increasing, serious
recession and you expect a stock increase? If you're going to argue about
some topic that has absolutely nothing to do with woodworking, at least make
*some* attempt to argue it intelligently.
On Mar 12, 11:50=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 12:51 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 1D1OT wrote:
> >>> If you had one million one-dollar bills and stood on a street corner =
giving
> >>> them away at the rate of one per minute, it would take you three year=
s to
> >>> get rid of them all at 24 hours per day. To give away a billion of th=
em
> >>> would take 3,000 years. A TRILLION would take you THREE MILLION YEARS=
.
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/cbcxc3
> >> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
> >> a mere few weeks to do so...
>
> >> --
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----- -
> >> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> >> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> > I think you have a secret crush on Nancy, Tim.
>
> :) =A0You got me. =A0I have this thing for shriveled, whiney, race bating=
,
> political trash...
>
Maybe, but I bet she's a tigress in the sack, although she's not
nearly as hot as Janet Reno.
On Mar 12, 1:50=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 11:50 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
> >>> On Mar 12, 12:51 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> 1D1OT wrote:
> >>>>> If you had one million one-dollar bills and stood on a street corne=
r giving
> >>>>> them away at the rate of one per minute, it would take you three ye=
ars to
> >>>>> get rid of them all at 24 hours per day. To give away a billion of =
them
> >>>>> would take 3,000 years. A TRILLION would take you THREE MILLION YEA=
RS.
> >>>>>http://tinyurl.com/cbcxc3
> >>>> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Rei=
d
> >>>> a mere few weeks to do so...
> >>>> --
> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------=
------- -
> >>>> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> >>>> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
> >>> I think you have a secret crush on Nancy, Tim.
> >> :) =A0You got me. =A0I have this thing for shriveled, whiney, race bat=
ing,
> >> political trash...
>
> > Maybe, but I bet she's a tigress in the sack, although she's not
> > nearly as hot as Janet Reno.
>
> Why don't you just come out of your closet and admit your infatuation
> with Hillary Clinton - or would that be a man crush?
>
*shudder*
I thought that the concept of a man crush was more in your Coulter's
playbook.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Rational, thoughtful people that are just as sick of the culture of
> stealing and mooching that has invaded Western democracies as I am,
> that's who.
> This coming from someone who's entire rhetorical range consists of
> fulminating, personal attacks, and whining...
And you accuse me of attacks and whining? You, whose sole mantra is life is
"What is it going to cost me."
Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 12, 11:50 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 12:51 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 1D1OT wrote:
>>>>> If you had one million one-dollar bills and stood on a street corner giving
>>>>> them away at the rate of one per minute, it would take you three years to
>>>>> get rid of them all at 24 hours per day. To give away a billion of them
>>>>> would take 3,000 years. A TRILLION would take you THREE MILLION YEARS.
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cbcxc3
>>>> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
>>>> a mere few weeks to do so...
>>>> --
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>>>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>>>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>> I think you have a secret crush on Nancy, Tim.
>> :) You got me. I have this thing for shriveled, whiney, race bating,
>> political trash...
>>
> Maybe, but I bet she's a tigress in the sack, although she's not
> nearly as hot as Janet Reno.
>
Why don't you just come out of your closet and admit your infatuation
with Hillary Clinton - or would that be a man crush?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Well, I'm at least talking to you ...
>
> If you consider my messages to you "talking", then you're a masochist. As
> far as I'm concerned, it's open season on you and anything you post.
> Apparently, you like it that way.
>
>
Your attention is most flattering.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 12, 8:37 am, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>> DGDevin wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
>>>> a mere few weeks to do so...
>>> So how long did it take from the final version of the $700 billion TARP bill
>>> being passed by Congress until Bush signed it? I'll save you the trouble of
>>> looking it up, it was a matter of a few hours.
>> And how many hours did it take obama to sign the pelosi pork bill? Did
>> you notice that this last 400+ billion spending bill obama hid in his
>> office?
>>
>> To paraphrased what he said: I plan to eliminate earmark spending and
>> will give the American people 5 days to review any spending bill before
>> I sign it.
>>
>> One of many promises already broken.
>
> He never said that, that kind of paraphrasing is misleading. That was
> McCain who talked about eliminating pork. Obama pledged to "reform
> pork" spending.
> 25 out of 28 recipients of pork in the last bill were Repuglicans.
> Try to get it right.
Please provide a cite for this other than IAmReallyHigh.com.
About 60% of the stuff was from the Dems, the other 40% was from the Rs.
They are *all* revolting little political pigs with their fat snouts
in the wallets of the (fewer and fewer) people that still wish to work.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
DGDevin wrote:
>> How about the obama effect, 30% decrease in the stock markets since
>> he was elected, instead of the 10% rise that has happened for every
>> presidential election for the last century except two other democrats;
>> Carter, and Wilson?
>
> The economy crashed while Bush was still in office, to imagine that a
> catastrophe that widespread would magically reverse itself the day Obama was
> sworn in is childish. If a ship ends up on the rocks the guy you want to
> talk to is whoever was Captain when it happened, not his replacement after
> the fact.
>
Keep going back. You have Clinton and Barney Frank to thank.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
DGDevin wrote:
>> Keep going back. You have Clinton and Barney Frank to thank.
>
> Yup, Clinton signed a couple of bills (passed by a Republican-controlled
> Congress) that directly facilitated the financial collapse by loosening
> regulation of the banks, he still defends doing so to this day too. Of
> course that doesn't mean the next administration gets a pass from failing to
> recognize what was happening.
You mean like the dozens of times (17 in 2008 alone) that the Bush
administration tried to warn congress about it, calling for action. You
can also watch the hearings on youtube where Barney Frank, over and over
again, says there was nothing wrong with Freddie or Fanny, while trying
paint those calling for action as racists and fear mongers. During all
of this, Frank was in bed with (literally and figuratively) the two
institutions.
> None of the bastards wanted to call an end to
> the party no matter how wild it got, so long as the market was going up they
> chose to look the other way. You'd think the Great Crash of 1929 would have
> taught us to avoid this sort of unregulated speculatory greed, but
> apparently not. I'm no fan of big government, but at the point where my tax
> dollars are being used to rescue giant banks run by morons who gambled and
> lost (and paid themselves multi-million-dollar bonuses even as their
> companies crumbled around them), I want the sonsofbitches forced to play by
> rules that will keep it from happening again. Time for some re-regulation,
> we tried it the other way and look what it got us.
>
I'm with you in that boat.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Robatoy wrote:
> Heck no! They're bankers because they like us and wish us well. If
> there was a way for them to make us all happy without them making a
> penny, they would do so.
>
> I can not even TRY to entertain your hypotheticals without breaking
> out. First into a sweat, then into uncontrollable laughter.
>
Maybe the tinfoil hat is causing some sort of short to the synapses
in whatever part of your brain that controls hysteria. :-p
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
: Robatoy wrote:
:> On Mar 12, 8:37 am, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
:>> DGDevin wrote:
:>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
:>>>> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
:>>>> a mere few weeks to do so...
:>>> So how long did it take from the final version of the $700 billion TARP bill
:>>> being passed by Congress until Bush signed it? I'll save you the trouble of
:>>> looking it up, it was a matter of a few hours.
:>> And how many hours did it take obama to sign the pelosi pork bill? Did
:>> you notice that this last 400+ billion spending bill obama hid in his
:>> office?
:>>
:>> To paraphrased what he said: I plan to eliminate earmark spending and
:>> will give the American people 5 days to review any spending bill before
:>> I sign it.
:>>
:>> One of many promises already broken.
:>
:> He never said that, that kind of paraphrasing is misleading. That was
:> McCain who talked about eliminating pork. Obama pledged to "reform
:> pork" spending.
:> 25 out of 28 recipients of pork in the last bill were Repuglicans.
:> Try to get it right.
: Please provide a cite for this other than IAmReallyHigh.com.
: About 60% of the stuff was from the Dems, the other 40% was from the Rs.
http://www.slate.com/id/2213556/
Six of the top 10 earmarkers are GOP, including the #1 and #2 spots.
-- Andy Barss
Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 12, 1:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 11:50 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 12, 12:51 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> 1D1OT wrote:
>>>>>>> If you had one million one-dollar bills and stood on a street corner giving
>>>>>>> them away at the rate of one per minute, it would take you three years to
>>>>>>> get rid of them all at 24 hours per day. To give away a billion of them
>>>>>>> would take 3,000 years. A TRILLION would take you THREE MILLION YEARS.
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cbcxc3
>>>>>> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
>>>>>> a mere few weeks to do so...
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>>>>>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>>>>>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>>>> I think you have a secret crush on Nancy, Tim.
>>>> :) You got me. I have this thing for shriveled, whiney, race bating,
>>>> political trash...
>>> Maybe, but I bet she's a tigress in the sack, although she's not
>>> nearly as hot as Janet Reno.
>> Why don't you just come out of your closet and admit your infatuation
>> with Hillary Clinton - or would that be a man crush?
>>
> *shudder*
Bwhahhahahaaaaaa ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> : Robatoy wrote:
> :> On Mar 12, 8:37 am, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> :>> DGDevin wrote:
> :>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> :>>>> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
> :>>>> a mere few weeks to do so...
> :>>> So how long did it take from the final version of the $700 billion TARP bill
> :>>> being passed by Congress until Bush signed it? I'll save you the trouble of
> :>>> looking it up, it was a matter of a few hours.
> :>> And how many hours did it take obama to sign the pelosi pork bill? Did
> :>> you notice that this last 400+ billion spending bill obama hid in his
> :>> office?
> :>>
> :>> To paraphrased what he said: I plan to eliminate earmark spending and
> :>> will give the American people 5 days to review any spending bill before
> :>> I sign it.
> :>>
> :>> One of many promises already broken.
> :>
> :> He never said that, that kind of paraphrasing is misleading. That was
> :> McCain who talked about eliminating pork. Obama pledged to "reform
> :> pork" spending.
> :> 25 out of 28 recipients of pork in the last bill were Repuglicans.
> :> Try to get it right.
>
> : Please provide a cite for this other than IAmReallyHigh.com.
> : About 60% of the stuff was from the Dems, the other 40% was from the Rs.
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2213556/
>
> Six of the top 10 earmarkers are GOP, including the #1 and #2 spots.
>
>
> -- Andy Barss
I guess this is one of those "you have to be specific" kind of things.
My understanding is (and I could be wrong) that about 60% of the
*number* of earmarks came from the Ds, the rest from the Rs. Your cite
argues that the top 10 earmarks in *dollar amount* come from the Rs.
OK, but that doesn't speak to what *percentage* of the total pork this
represents. Then there's your claim that "25 of 28 recipients" were Rs
- and still no substantiation of this.
I'm not defending the Rs here - they're morons for participating in
this stuff. But you folks who happily carry water for the Left have
demonstrated a disturbing tendency in the past decade of being
disingenuous and outright deceitful in some cases when reporting
things that require the use of numbers.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>
>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>
>>> Ummm... Devin, I just read your other post. Come clean. You got that
>>> off last night's news, didn't you? Did you even once open the cover
>>> of a finance textbook?
>> I've been following this story for awhile, the interviews done by shows
>> like Frontline and even (brace yourself) 60 Minutes with people who were
>> in the
>> thick of it have been eye-opening. "The Devil made me do it" has never
>> been an acceptable excuse to me, financial institutions that told their
>> own employees to shut up and get with the program do not now get to claim
>> really
>> it's all the fault of Congress. Which is not to say Congress has no blame
>> of course, taking away the rules was a big part of what went wrong, but
>> then the banks lobbied for the rules to be removed, didn't they.
>
> Until your argument includes the CRA, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac loosening of
> credit rules to support "affordable housing" and includes Barney Frank,
> Chris Countrywide Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelik, et al you have no
> credibility by seeking to cast this blame solely upon the banking industry.
>
>
You're missing the point Mark. The establishment politicians (both Ds
and many Rs) want this to be a problem in the private sector. Having
corrupted capitalism with their malignant politics, they are now
turning on it as the culprit to further solidify government control of
... well, pretty much everything.
The banks bears some blame, of course, but they are the third order
effect here. The first order cause is a government not only deficit
spending, but doing so at an acceleration greater than that of the GDP
growth for decades. It is the public - the mooching, lazy, greedy,
give-me-something-for-nothing sheeple that are at the heart of this
problem. They are the ones instructing the government - indeed
*demanding* - to give them "free" stuff.
No one can fix this until and unless individual citizens decide that
being self-reliant and personally responsible are important values.
Given that about half the population is now picking up some- or all of
the tab for the other half, this seems unlikely. Even here, among
people generally known for their creativity and hard work, you've seen
screaming when it's suggest that everyone is responsible for
themselves. I've been called selfish, greedy, and worse for insisting
that people take care of themselves or appeal to private charity
rather than using the government's gun to make other citizens pick up
the tab.
Our descent into hell continues with Obamamessiah as the locomotive
engineer ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> The problem with your argument is that the stock market is forward
>> looking. If the market thought that The One's plans
>
> See, you started off so well, and then you had to indulge in childish
> posturing.
Ummm... Devin, I just read your other post. Come clean. You got that off
last night's news, didn't you? Did you even once open the cover of a finance
textbook?
1D1OT wrote:
> If you had one million one-dollar bills and stood on a street corner giving
> them away at the rate of one per minute, it would take you three years to
> get rid of them all at 24 hours per day. To give away a billion of them
> would take 3,000 years. A TRILLION would take you THREE MILLION YEARS.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cbcxc3
>
>
>
But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
a mere few weeks to do so...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Until your argument includes the CRA, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
> loosening of credit rules to support "affordable housing" and
> includes Barney Frank, Chris Countrywide Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jamie
> Gorelik, et al you have no credibility by seeking to cast this blame
> solely upon the banking industry.
Please quote me seeking to cast blame solely on the banking industry.
<crickets>
I would have thought, "Greedy bankers don't get *all* the blame but they
certainly deserve plenty of it" indicated I didn't exclusively blame the
financial industry. And frankly until your argument includes the reckless
greed of that industry as part of the equation then your own credibility is
less than you might imagine. Did you happen to see Bernanke interviewed on
60 Minutes last night? PhD in Economics from MIT, appointed Chairman of the
fed by Bush--he referred in plain language to the reckless gambling
companies like AIG indulged in, is he talking through his hat?
If the situation weren't so serious it might be amusing to watch the
ideologues of the left and right blaming each other for the economic
meltdown, unfortunately the situation is damn serious and unlikely to
improve much for years IMO.
-MIKE- wrote:
>> The economy crashed while Bush was still in office, to imagine that a
>> catastrophe that widespread would magically reverse itself the day
>> Obama was sworn in is childish. If a ship ends up on the rocks the
>> guy you want to talk to is whoever was Captain when it happened, not
>> his replacement after the fact.
>>
>
> Keep going back. You have Clinton and Barney Frank to thank.
Yup, Clinton signed a couple of bills (passed by a Republican-controlled
Congress) that directly facilitated the financial collapse by loosening
regulation of the banks, he still defends doing so to this day too. Of
course that doesn't mean the next administration gets a pass from failing to
recognize what was happening. None of the bastards wanted to call an end to
the party no matter how wild it got, so long as the market was going up they
chose to look the other way. You'd think the Great Crash of 1929 would have
taught us to avoid this sort of unregulated speculatory greed, but
apparently not. I'm no fan of big government, but at the point where my tax
dollars are being used to rescue giant banks run by morons who gambled and
lost (and paid themselves multi-million-dollar bonuses even as their
companies crumbled around them), I want the sonsofbitches forced to play by
rules that will keep it from happening again. Time for some re-regulation,
we tried it the other way and look what it got us.
DGDevin wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
>> a mere few weeks to do so...
>
> So how long did it take from the final version of the $700 billion TARP bill
> being passed by Congress until Bush signed it? I'll save you the trouble of
> looking it up, it was a matter of a few hours.
>
>
And how many hours did it take obama to sign the pelosi pork bill? Did
you notice that this last 400+ billion spending bill obama hid in his
office?
To paraphrased what he said: I plan to eliminate earmark spending and
will give the American people 5 days to review any spending bill before
I sign it.
One of many promises already broken.
DGDevin wrote:
> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
>> I suppose you can rationalize away the five days, no lobbyist, and
>> other promises that have been broken.
>
> I am disappointed that the Obama administration has failed to live up to
> some of the promises made before the election, an example being the new
> No.
> 2 guy at the Pentagon being a former defense contractor lobbyist. I can't
> believe he was the only person good enough for that job that they had to
> waive the promise about pushing lobbyists away from the table in
> Washington. Things like that suggest the new administration is discovering
> that governing is somewhat more difficult than making promises.
>
>> How about the obama effect, 30% decrease in the stock markets since
>> he was elected, instead of the 10% rise that has happened for every
>> presidential election for the last century except two other democrats;
>> Carter, and Wilson?
>
> The economy crashed while Bush was still in office, to imagine that a
> catastrophe that widespread would magically reverse itself the day Obama
> was
> sworn in is childish. If a ship ends up on the rocks the guy you want to
> talk to is whoever was Captain when it happened, not his replacement after
> the fact.
The problem with your argument is that the stock market is forward
looking. If the market thought that The One's plans were going to lift the
economy, even in a more distant future time period, the market would
have,at a minimum, stabilized. Instead, the market tanked. Every time
Obama has made a statement, the market tanks some more -- there are a
number of examples of days in which the market was staging a rally and
either he or a member of his administration made a comment (e.g. "Profit
and Earnings Ratio") and the market retreated. That's a vote of the
market's confidence in the current administration, not an opinion of any
previous administration.
Another good gauge of confidence in this administration is firearms
sales -- through the roof. Nobody who had two brain cells to rub together
believed Him during the campaign when he made that stupid statement to his
followers to "get in peoples' faces and tell them that I support the second
amendment". The election can be viewed as the firearms and ammunition
manufacturers recovery act of 2008 -- after his election guns and
ammunition began flying off the shelves. Those people of course were
right, this administration has some of the most radical anti-second
amendment members that have ever been appointed to an administration,
starting with Attorney General Holder who has actually made the statement
that the federal government has the authority to disarm state national
guards (which completely nullifies the lefties normal goofy interpretation
of the second amendment).
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 12, 12:51 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 1D1OT wrote:
>>> If you had one million one-dollar bills and stood on a street corner giving
>>> them away at the rate of one per minute, it would take you three years to
>>> get rid of them all at 24 hours per day. To give away a billion of them
>>> would take 3,000 years. A TRILLION would take you THREE MILLION YEARS.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/cbcxc3
>> But it only took the Obamessiah and his evil henchmen Pelosi and Reid
>> a mere few weeks to do so...
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> I think you have a secret crush on Nancy, Tim.
:) You got me. I have this thing for shriveled, whiney, race bating,
political trash...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
MikeWhy wrote:
> Ummm... Devin, I just read your other post. Come clean. You got that
> off last night's news, didn't you? Did you even once open the cover
> of a finance textbook?
I've been following this story for awhile, the interviews done by shows like
Frontline and even (brace yourself) 60 Minutes with people who were in the
thick of it have been eye-opening. "The Devil made me do it" has never been
an acceptable excuse to me, financial institutions that told their own
employees to shut up and get with the program do not now get to claim really
it's all the fault of Congress. Which is not to say Congress has no blame
of course, taking away the rules was a big part of what went wrong, but then
the banks lobbied for the rules to be removed, didn't they.
DGDevin wrote:
> MikeWhy wrote:
>
>> Ummm... Devin, I just read your other post. Come clean. You got that
>> off last night's news, didn't you? Did you even once open the cover
>> of a finance textbook?
>
> I've been following this story for awhile, the interviews done by shows
> like Frontline and even (brace yourself) 60 Minutes with people who were
> in the
> thick of it have been eye-opening. "The Devil made me do it" has never
> been an acceptable excuse to me, financial institutions that told their
> own employees to shut up and get with the program do not now get to claim
> really
> it's all the fault of Congress. Which is not to say Congress has no blame
> of course, taking away the rules was a big part of what went wrong, but
> then the banks lobbied for the rules to be removed, didn't they.
Until your argument includes the CRA, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac loosening of
credit rules to support "affordable housing" and includes Barney Frank,
Chris Countrywide Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelik, et al you have no
credibility by seeking to cast this blame solely upon the banking industry.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough