IDBillzFan Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 ...and now that it's coming out who all is behind it, the idea that this is a populist movement is going up in smoke. Links, please. I'd love to know who was behind it. Please show me what's "coming out." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I was happy when Raygun bombed Tripoli. I was happy when Bush bombed Afgoonistan. Otherwise - the "wars" we've fought since WWII have not had my support (not that I was alive for all of them). Didn't agree with the Tanker War, or Desert Storm? Other than those, I'd agree with you. Now what ALL this has to do with idiots and their teabags is beyond me. They have no credibility and now that it's coming out who all is behind it, the idea that this is a populist movement is going up in smoke. I haven't followed the thread...I don't even know what you're talking about. Nor do I want to know, frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Actually the "BUSH" bailout was scheduled to be implemented in 2 parts. Bush and crew had half to play with and the agreement was the rest would be released Obama and crew. I hated that bailout. What made the second one bad was Obama and crew now have not only spent the origical 375 that their admin was supposed to target where they thought it best could be used, but now have more than doubled it by that much more to fund their friends and family pet projects to thank folks for getting them elected. So Obama and crew did get 800 billion they had 1.15 trillion to spend in the last 2 months. OK ... So how does that explain the "stipulations" with Obama's money (NOT to go to bonus' and retreats and Golden Umbrellas) and Bush's spend it how you like differences in policy? Which one was being more or less fiscally responsible? Who's to say the Bush crew EVEN had a CLUE how much $$$ it would take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 OK ... So how does that explain the "stipulations" with Obama's money (NOT to go to bonus' and retreats and Golden Umbrellas) and Bush's spend it how you like differences in policy? Which one was being more or less fiscally responsible? Who's to say the Bush crew EVEN had a CLUE how much $$$ it would take? Way to miss the point. Bush had half of the initial plan and said do what you want. Did it work, who knows. Obama had half and said do what you want and oh lets break the original agreement of half for each admin and give me another 800 billion since me and my liberal buds now control congress. Did it work. Who knows. Big difference is, the original would have added a small amount of taxes to folks. the second one in effect doubled that amount, with no real assurrance that either did any good. On top of that Obama specifically put in there the payouts for the Aig and other folks, and then lied about it until he and Dodd were caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Way to miss the point. Bush had half of the initial plan and said do what you want. Did it work, who knows. Obama had half and said do what you want and oh lets break the original agreement of half for each admin and give me another 800 billion since me and my liberal buds now control congress. Did it work. Who knows. Big difference is, the original would have added a small amount of taxes to folks. the second one in effect doubled that amount, with no real assurrance that either did any good. On top of that Obama specifically put in there the payouts for the Aig and other folks, and then lied about it until he and Dodd were caught. BOTH PLANS would increase TAXES to people. But I believe Obama has stated that these corporations HAVE to REPAY these bail out loans to the Fed. Do you really believe Obama Wants to Control the Banks, therefore he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money? Is there an underlying reason that is keeping the banks from continued mistakes? Does keeping them under control stop them from continued wastful spending? Strong banks will be allowed to repay federal bailout funds, but only if such a move passes a test to determine whether it is in the national economic interest, the Financial Times reported on Sunday, citing a senior U.S. administration official. The report said banks that had plenty of capital and demonstrated an ability to raise fresh capital from the market should, in principle, be able to repay government funds. Read the issues and don't rant about what some dingbat posts on a blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 BOTH PLANS would increase TAXES to people. But I believe Obama has stated that these corporations HAVE to REPAY these bail out loans to the Fed. Do you really believe Obama Wants to Control the Banks, therefore he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money? Is there an underlying reason that is keeping the banks from continued mistakes? Does keeping them under control stop them from continued wastful spending? Strong banks will be allowed to repay federal bailout funds, but only if such a move passes a test to determine whether it is in the national economic interest, the Financial Times reported on Sunday, citing a senior U.S. administration official. The report said banks that had plenty of capital and demonstrated an ability to raise fresh capital from the market should, in principle, be able to repay government funds. Read the issues and don't rant about what some dingbat posts on a blog. I don't read blog or listen to ranting idiots on talk radio/tv. I read the paper (W Post) and listen primarily to left leaning local radio and news. I continue to say WTF are you guys talking about? I also happen to do some work with the government and have a little more insight on reality especially when it come to the spending portion on construction currently and just moved where I had numerous years of insight on housing and mortgages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Do you really believe Obama Wants to Control the automotive manufacturers...? No, wait. Do you really believe Obama Wants to Control the health care industry...? No, wait. Do you really believe Obama Wants to Control the energy industry...? No, wait. Do you really believe Obama Wants to Control the Banks...? No, no. Not at all. He's just doing what's best for us. We're stupid. We can't take care of ourselves. Only the government can fix this mess. Thank God he's tackling the credit card companies today because none of us really ever knew that a credit card came with high interest charges. I understand next up he's going after the people who charge high fees for Mexico-to-US calling cards, and then the people who charge fees for transferring money from the US to Cuba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I think his point was something like "Realistically, we've been at war with Iraq since 1991, how come you only object to certain parts of it?" Which is certainly not an invalid question. He's just a little too dopey to phrase it coherently. I understood it complete....oh wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I read the paper (W Post) and listen primarily to left leaning local radio and news. I continue to say WTF are you guys talking about? There's a Left leaning radio station in the DC area? Which one. All I get on my AM dial while driving home from work is Hannity, Monica Crowley, Rush, Beck and Dennis Miller. Obams's not perfect. No president is. Some people refuse to accept that. No, no. Not at all. He's just doing what's best for us. We're stupid. We can't take care of ourselves. Only the government can fix this mess. Thank God he's tackling the credit card companies today because none of us really ever knew that a credit card came with high interest charges. I understand next up he's going after the people who charge high fees for Mexico-to-US calling cards, and then the people who charge fees for transferring money from the US to Cuba. Actually people ARE STUPID. A LOT of people were STUPID enough to sign sub prime loans and No Document Loans. The fell into the TRAP set by preditory banks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 There's a Left leaning radio station in the DC area? Which one. All I get on my AM dial while driving home from work is Hannity, Monica Crowley, Rush, Beck and Dennis Miller. Are you kidding? Actually people ARE STUPID. A LOT of people were STUPID enough to sign sub prime loans and No Document Loans. The fell into the TRAP set by preditory banks. Banks are evil. If only the government had established some sort of standard or practice so that everyone could own a home without being taken for a ride by the evil, evil banks...oh, wait, they did. The result was sub-prime loans. It's truly refreshing when you're clearly being stupid, and we're not left to wonder whether or not you're kidding... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I'm not "clearly" being stupid, on the contrary to your "belief" I'm being reasonable! No government agency FORCED banks to produce No Document loans, Sub Prime loans are only SMART if you have a refinance clause in them after 1 year. IF anyone forced people into buying homes it was He Who Shall Not Be Named when he boasted home purchases were at an all time high in 2005 YET neglected to tell the same people that foreclosures were ALSO at an all time high! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I'm not "clearly" being stupid, on the contrary to your "belief" I'm being reasonable! No government agency FORCED banks to produce No Document loans, Sub Prime loans are only SMART if you have a refinance clause in them after 1 year. IF anyone forced people into buying homes it was He Who Shall Not Be Named when he boasted home purchases were at an all time high in 2005 YET neglected to tell the same people that foreclosures were ALSO at an all time high! Banks were in fact forced to provide loans to folks that were not qualified. freddie mac and fannie mae in fact were required to have portfolio of I believe it was 40% of the loan make up to low income / undocumented income folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Sub Prime loans are only SMART if you have a refinance clause in them after 1 year. Yeah, that's the ONLY time they're smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Banks were in fact forced to provide loans to folks that were not qualified. freddie mac and fannie mae in fact were required to have portfolio of I believe it was 40% of the loan make up to low income / undocumented income folks. Oh, stop it. What do you and I know. We only used to work in the friggin' industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Oh, stop it. What do you and I know. We only used to work in the friggin' industry. shhhhhh......... Yeah I know nothing of the accounting rules, CofA, mips, bonds attached to mips, securitization of said loans, etc... Nope I know nothing about any of that stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Oh, stop it. What do you and I know. We only used to work in the friggin' industry. AH HA!! So its both your faults!!! <BillsFan-4-Ever> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 AH HA!! So its both your faults!!! <BillsFan-4-Ever> Apparently. Gotta love these sore losers. Banks were given direction to provide affordable loans. Key Word - "affordable" You two do know what "affordable" means don't you? They were NOT foced to become predators. These banks that allowed their people to feed off the uneducated (the R's call then stupid) dug their own grave. Any banker with brains would know that the bubble was going to burst. What they didn't count on was getting caught with their pants around their ankles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Apparently. Gotta love these sore losers. Banks were given direction to provide affordable loans. Key Word - "affordable" You two do know what "affordable" means don't you? They were NOT foced to become predators. These banks that allowed their people to feed off the uneducated (the R's call then stupid) dug their own grave. Any banker with brains would know that the bubble was going to burst. What they didn't count on was getting caught with their pants around their ankles. I can't respond to this. You need a very basic education in how the financial industry works before we could begin to discuss it with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I can't respond to this. You need a very basic education in how the financial industry works before we could begin to discuss it with you. He got to be the Banker in a Monopoly game once. Does that count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I can't respond to this. You need a very basic education in how the financial industry works before we could begin to discuss it with you. Have you EVER heard of an Ethics Committee? Whatever happened to Fair lending and consumer protection practices? I've hear all the arguments that it's Clintons fault, so... Since you deem me unknowledgeable ... I'd love to see a link that proves your point. And here's the kicker.... IF it's TRUE why didn't Bush's Administration FIX the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts