StupidNation

Are you honestly that stupid? So according to you the bailout wasn't to bail out bad debts the banks had on the books but it was purchase illiquid assets that weren't liquid and that's not bailing out bad debts? If the debt was good and liquid they wouldn't need money, but somehow you can twist that in your mind to pretend you know something no one else does. When a loan goes bad the bank can fund the deal without If your claim is on the basis of asset definition or bad debt a bad debt is defined as "In financial accounting and finance, bad debt is the portion of receivables that can no longer be collected, typically from accounts receivable or loans." Your second sentence is a tautology and doesn't clarify anything. Let's take your 2nd sentence: "It was to purchase "liquid" assets that were no longer liquid." Either you mean they were to purchase non-liquid assets that aren't liquid, which is simply repeating your sorry ass and doesn't say anything of substance; or you think that by repeating yourself you are making a point unknown to anyone. Why not say the point of defining things is for the sake of definitions. Real deep Jack Handy. You can also refrase that to mean "It was to purchase "liquid" assets that were illiquid." Or funnier yet since you used quotes to show flippancy to the word liquid you could also infer the following meaning: "It was to purchase illiquid assets that were illiquid." So purchasing illiquid debt because they were illiquid really clarifies things doesn't it genius? Next thing you know you might say, "The point of studying history is the intent to know more about history in the event of a historical moment. In this case I studied the French Revolution because it had to do with France and a Revolution." Anyone who calls into question someone's intelligence by defining their rebuttal by repeating ideas really is a 3 legged ballerina in the world of intellectual endeavors, and then pretending I'm at fault without refuting anything and only make pretentious idiotic statements. Toxic debt is not liquid Einstein, and it's bad debt. You want to play semantics and be witty, I mean you obviously have more time on your hands than I do with your waste of a life 17k posts and probably miss a normal life, but that's ok, pretend that by mentally masturbating yourself into legendary status you are accomplishing something.

The original idea was horrible. Bad debts are bad debts and giving more money, and not nearly enough money to fix the problem (through their eyes), is not going to fix the problem but drag it out. Look at Japan, they tried this and instead of letting the bad debts become bad debts they have screwed up their economy for almost 19 years. If you want to see anyone honest look up Ron Paul on youtube. Type in Ron Paul bailouts and watch some videos. There's a politician who called what was going to happen in 1999. The problem is people rarely believe in freedom anymore. They expect the gov't to fix the problem when they help cause it. They expect a pro-active solution when only the market itself is the cure. They expect the regulate the market with crazy ideas, but blame the free-market when it's convenient. Honestly, we aren't looking at ourselves as part of the problem, but only the gov't. The gov't cannot create jobs or prosperity, they can only hinder it. Only production and savings spur the economy to greater bounds. We haven't tried that in a long time. This is the inevitable conclusion of an anti-freedom campaign against the free-market. Bush said he had to turn against the free-market for the sake of the free-market. My question is when have we had a free market? Rates are forced on investors to prop up markets and tear down others without any input of the market, we have a system which penalizes people that make things and sell them, and give benefits to people for bad behavior. How long could this last? We are watching the end of the country as you know it in the next 10 years or less. It just won't exist.

Are you on drugs? Drama queen? That guy went to training camp and put his team first the whole season through. When he had a dispute and the team won he left because he didn't want the media circus about him but the team winning.

Lee Evans salary and a 2nd rounder.

Yes, that's exactly what I said and meant meatbag.

That's a fallacy, disproven in the last 50 years.

He's actually more of a fascist than a socialist at this point. I think the word socialism isn't understood and used to mean anything big gov't.

Compare his ballhawking abilities to Whitner's. Look up PDs and INTs. Get back to me.

Did you know, you don't have to produce things to have wealth, you just print more credit? Geesh, what's wrong with you.

You know what? You are a terrible, evil bastard of a man because you don't have hope that the change we need is worth hoping for. You know it's people like you who have destroyed the hope of the lives of changing Americans. I hope, for your sake, that you begin to change your tune otherwise you can't say "yes we can!" In other words, convert your dollars to hard assets and prepare for future change you can believe in!

Both Obama or McCain would have damaged the economy, Obama worse, but both of them would have saw the market go down to differing degrees. Both policies of the current GOP and Dems would and have hurt the economy.

Fine, look at the graph 1/3rd of the page down given by the Dept of Commerce. It shows the rise of duties on imports. You are smart enough to understand our policies on tariffs so you will know how that translated into production and consumption. http://www.freetrade.org/new/buch1.html When you are finished you will realize, once again, you're an ass who can't think straight.

Coming from a guy who supports none of his statements except with his ass I find that humorous.

We were producing things and increasing our base even through a war. I know it might be hard to image production as growth, but let it sink it. Your legend grows, in your own mind.

Who the hell cares if he suffered. He lost his rights the moment he made others lose theirs. The only thing he didn't deserve was an extended trial on tax-payers money. I believe in a trial for him, but it was too long and drawn out. Should've been 2 days, close the doors, killed him the next day.

When was the last time you've seen Lee make a catch in traffic or in the middle of the field. Lee is Mr Captain Short Arm.

That's 2 more than Dante.

He's not a conservative in a small government kind of way. He'll say whatever he needs to be elected. He's not honest. Worst of all he claims he's against everything I'm saying and that he's really for small gov't, and is the straight-talk express. Worst of all he's helped destroy personal liberties along with the majority of the GOP. I may disgree with Kucinich, but I like the guy, he's honest from his own view and will debate issues.

Because people use it here all the time. Most contrary arguments usually run like this: X politician is in X party, therefore they suck without argument to substance The guy who writes this belongs to this group, therefore he's wrong You are a XXXXist or XXXXXXphobe when I disagree with you It's a term for refers to "a political strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public".

I think Whitner's salary at twice that of Dawkins (if you include cap with salary) is awesome. Dawkins at least has done something.

Actually the time in which this country got rich was between 1860-1915. We are still living off of that wealth really. We had manufacturing boom in the country, strong middle class growing, actual wealth rather than credit creation. The "research" they are doing is garbage and faulty. It's intending to tax the lower and middle-class through inflation wiping out wealth left and right and centralizing more power. What's sad is you trust these people with their "research" but tell me when the last time they were right on anything. We are poorer than ever before, and educated with actual knowledge rather than error. People don't own houses, their income, their cars, and most live on revolving debt. Stop paying your mortgage that people owe 80% of their equity and see what happens. We own next to nothing except equity spreads on mortgages. We lost our income to the income tax which can be increased and we have no say; we lost our freedoms and wealth and people still trust the government to get us out of the mess they created. Government cannot create jobs, just take them away. Government feeds on productivity of others, not vice versa.

One more reason not to like the guy who is being anointed next GOP savior. Never liked him.

Has anyone read this report? I just started to, and it's point is that subsidizing the workforce with diversity mandates has reduced productivity because of inefficiency and job security because of race. I know it might shock someone, but if you subsidize something you get less productivity because the cream cannot rise to the top. You tell a company they have to hire so many of X race and they have to, they will inevitably have to hire less qualified people and keep them on staff because of quotas. Tell someone they can get hired because of their race and not merit and there is reverse discrimination. Discrimination is supposed to be looking beyond color and to the person, yet affirmative action is inherently racist and discriminatory because we are supposed to mandate race and look at color to make decisions. The next point was the cost of illegals using subsidizing health care and welfare and living off of others further decreasing productivity. Well, that's a fact. If you take from producing people and create a class of non-producing people by mandating subsidies then you will get more of it because humans are many times lazy. You are rewarding bad behavior. He does talk of "importing poverty" which I have no problem if someone wants to come here, work hard, and live poor as long as their condition is better and they are not a drain on the nation and others economically or culturally. Sorry, I shouldn't be forced to speak Spanish in supermarkets across the south, it's a violation of the culture. Can you imagine a bunch of Americans forcing others to speak English in Mexico? How long would that last until pitchforks come out. Still, this chapter is ridiculous. America was built on a nation of immigrants working hard, and it's not like Ol' Whitey is having children in this country. He does, in fairness, tie the poverty to welfare assistance as a drain, which it is. He brings up natives losing jobs to illegals and exporting currency and productivity. That is a fact. He brings up lack of trust with multi-culturalism and again, where is he wrong? Or do you think Whitey feels safe in the hood, or that German immigrants trust Germans and Mexicans with other Mexicans? Those are cultural facts. Cites a Harvard study, which is also adduced by fact and observation. Adduces that multi-cultural environments which have lack of trust which inhibits productivity. Cites studies, but it's pretty obvious as well. Brings up lack of communication in language as a barrier to make contracts. To even bring up what group he is in, without examining facts, is an intellectual sign of weakness against facts and arguments. His arguments by and large are sound. What made this country great was never diversity, but the freedom to conduct your life in freedom. Mandating diversity is a true sign of a lack of liberty. If Jews want to hire Jews no one raises a finger, if blacks hire other blacks so be it, but the mandates are on whites. That's not poor Ol' Whitey, that's the government forcing only whites to hire those not white. That's discrimination. That's a lose of freedom, and yes, it does hurt the productivity.

Yes, I remember it, I never saw a scientific refutation of his statement. It took his statement of fact and turned it into a racist diatribe. Amazing how no one attacked the study, but the person, which is not an argument, it's demagoguery and the argument of weak minded individuals when confronted with facts.

I don't like McCain, but let's suppose he won, let's project CNN articles for the McCain presidency: CNN INVESTIGATES: Cindy McCain, has she taken government money for plastic surgery? NY TIMES: McCain: Spending Our Children into the Ghettos Chicago Tribune: McCain Not BiPartisan and Lacking Vision