GG Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Just fantasic! Clap, clap, bravo! http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/51940.html I saw her on C-span last night for the 2006 Alaska Governor's debate and she was pretty good. She can probably gaffe away all she wants and no one will care. Hell, they are saying in a McCain ad that she stopped the bridge to no where. Blatent lie, but who cares, she is hot, eats mooseburgers and has a small child What is a blatant lie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 What is a blatant lie? That she stopped the bridge to nowhere. She actually campainged for governor telling the "nowhere" people that they should get their bridge and that they *sigh* were not nowhere people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 That she stopped the bridge to nowhere. She actually campainged for governor telling the "nowhere" people that they should get their bridge and that they *sigh* were not nowhere people Is that why you linked an article talking about Fan/Fred? As for the bridge: Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow said Saturday that as projected costs for the Ketchikan bridge rose to nearly $400 million [from $220 million], administration officials were telling Ketchikan that the project looked less likely. Local leaders shouldn't have been surprised when Palin announced she was turning to less-costly alternatives, Leighow said. Indeed, Leighow produced a report quoting Palin, late in the governor's race, indicating she would also consider alternatives to a bridge. Seems reasonable why she may have wanted to reconsider. Isn't that the kind of rational thinking you'd want out of elected representatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Is that why you linked an article talking about Fan/Fred? As for the bridge: Seems reasonable why she may have wanted to reconsider. Isn't that the kind of rational thinking you'd want out of elected representatives? Ya, that was an afterthought, why create a new thread? So she opposed it because of the cost increase and not on principle? Come on. Then she should say, "I loved the bridge, the ear mark, pork that it was, but I would not accept $400 million. A gal has to make a stand somewhere." No, she's acting like she stood against a pork project on principle, which is not true at all. She racted to the outrage in the lower 48 and then opposed it. What politician will refuse free government money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 http://www.economist.com/finance/displaySt...atures_box_main Good article on the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 http://www.economist.com/finance/displaySt...atures_box_main Good article on the situation. another good article It will now take several years at least for Fannie and Freddie to dig out of their financial holes, even with the infusion of taxpayer money. But that will not resolve the long-standing question of whether a for-profit company with some sort of government backing is the best way to assure a steady flow of low-cost capital to the housing markets. The crisis reminds us that, left on its own, the private sector will over-invest when the housing market is hot and then abandon the market when boom turns to bust. That's why Fannie and Freddie were invented, and why keeping them afloat now is crucial. But the lesson from the recent debacle is that if we are going to rely on government to bail out private entities, then government ought to have a much stronger hand in making sure a rescue is never needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Brady Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 check it out if your so inclined or you can just go back to the stupid little left vs. right battles that idiots like to waste time on. http://market-ticker.denninger.net/2008/04...sions-just.html Oh by the way, its a LOAN!!! here's some more good news for ya, http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Just fantasic! Clap, clap, bravo! http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/51940.html I saw her on C-span last night for the 2006 Alaska Governor's debate and she was pretty good. She can probably gaffe away all she wants and no one will care. Hell, they are saying in a McCain ad that she stopped the bridge to no where. Blatent lie, but who cares, she is hot, eats mooseburgers and has a small child Actually they are too expensive to the taxpayers as they were previously bailed-out before bought out. I guess your news story likes the liberal lie. Hey, who's idea was it to bail out the mortgages and save the poor homeowners thereby prolonging this mess for 3 or 4 more years and hurting the market and inflation? Oh... that's not newsworthy is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Brady Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Another spot on article: http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/comme...ry?art_id=10113 "Here are a few of specific suggestions that I think would be very helpful and send the right message to the country. Alan Greenspan should make a public apology and donate all of his book proceeds and speaking fees to a charity that helps families who have lost their homes in foreclosure. Ben Bernanke should immediately resign and recommend that Paul Volcker, the last successful Fed Chairman, take over his job. Stan O’Neal and Chuck Prince should return all of their severance packages to the shareholders of Merrill Lynch and Citibank. Dick Fuld, the CEO of Lehman Brothers, and Kerry Killinger, the CEO of Washington Mutual, should resign and accept no severance. I am not saying that any of these individuals are bad people. I do not know any of them personally, and I will give all of them the benefit of assuming that they are all wonderful people. However, I think they are all very high profile examples of people who made horrible errors in judgment and have failed to take responsibility for those errors. We cannot begin to heal our financial system until people at the top start setting an example for the rest of us. How can we ask a struggling family to keep making their mortgage payments instead of walking away if the people at the top who created the system that caused this mess do not take responsibility for what they did? Bankers are staring into the abyss. Will they find their character? I hope so." Read it and weep. It's Top vs Bottom and we're all on the bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Brady Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 There she BLOWS boys come and get it: Lehman Bros goin down!! http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Another spot on article: http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/comme...ry?art_id=10113 "Here are a few of specific suggestions that I think would be very helpful and send the right message to the country. Alan Greenspan should make a public apology and donate all of his book proceeds and speaking fees to a charity that helps families who have lost their homes in foreclosure. Ben Bernanke should immediately resign and recommend that Paul Volcker, the last successful Fed Chairman, take over his job. Stan O’Neal and Chuck Prince should return all of their severance packages to the shareholders of Merrill Lynch and Citibank. Dick Fuld, the CEO of Lehman Brothers, and Kerry Killinger, the CEO of Washington Mutual, should resign and accept no severance. I am not saying that any of these individuals are bad people. I do not know any of them personally, and I will give all of them the benefit of assuming that they are all wonderful people. However, I think they are all very high profile examples of people who made horrible errors in judgment and have failed to take responsibility for those errors. We cannot begin to heal our financial system until people at the top start setting an example for the rest of us. How can we ask a struggling family to keep making their mortgage payments instead of walking away if the people at the top who created the system that caused this mess do not take responsibility for what they did? Bankers are staring into the abyss. Will they find their character? I hope so." Read it and weep. It's Top vs Bottom and we're all on the bottom. What about the consumers who put themselves into massive debt that they knew they couldn't pay back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 What about the consumers who put themselves into massive debt that they knew they couldn't pay back? They're victims. Mr. Mortgage says so. Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 What about the consumers who put themselves into massive debt that they knew they couldn't pay back? It all started with Regans just keep spending attitude and the me generation. I buy what I can afford. I remember bankers and real estate agent claiming we could afford much more home than we purchased 20 years ago. Today our home is paid off and we use our credit cards so not to carry cash, we haven't carried a credit card balance since we were married over 25 years ago. The problem is people are basically sheep and will believe whatever anyone tells them versus understanding what a zero principle mortgage or ARM really means and will cost in 1 - 3 years. I am just amazed at folks fresh out of college buying 800K homes and when ya go over ya find they cant afford to furnish more than one room of the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 It all started with Regans just keep spending attitude and the me generation... It goes beyond buying more than you can afford - it's about buying when you shouldn't at all. It has been bipartisan doctrine that improving the rate of home ownership is 'good.' Congressional pressure has been consistently applied to improve those rates, especialy the rates for minorities and the poor. (In case you are wondering, about 69% of homes in this country are owned by their occupants.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 It all started with Regans just keep spending attitude and the me generation. I buy what I can afford. I remember bankers and real estate agent claiming we could afford much more home than we purchased 20 years ago. Today our home is paid off and we use our credit cards so not to carry cash, we haven't carried a credit card balance since we were married over 25 years ago. The problem is people are basically sheep and will believe whatever anyone tells them versus understanding what a zero principle mortgage or ARM really means and will cost in 1 - 3 years. I am just amazed at folks fresh out of college buying 800K homes and when ya go over ya find they cant afford to furnish more than one room of the house. What are stupid people for 1000$ Alex? I know plenty of people my age who make as much as I do yet drive nicer cars, have nice condos and more expensive hookers. The trick is, not to be dumb like them. Of course because of this mess, every Canadian bank is in a shell waiting for the storm to pass which will make it harder for someone like me to get a better job until that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Brady Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 They're victims. Mr. Mortgage says so. Duh. When have I stated that those in debt are victim's? As far as the ml implode website they've been batting about .999. Of course you're to arrogant to admit that. We should all just tip our hats to your genius there DC Paulson. Nice show you've got running down there, I was particularly amused watching you and ben, nancy , barney, dickey, george and chrissy holding that cluster fucck a couple months back. Which hole did you get? Its working out real well. By the way are you saving your money for the tax bill coming, doesn't matter who gets the pretty white house because your tax's are going waaay up. Where did all the fucckin money go genius??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 What are stupid people for 1000$ Alex? I know plenty of people my age who make as much as I do yet drive nicer cars, have nice condos and more expensive hookers. The trick is, not to be dumb like them. You like the cheaper hookers. Son, prostitution is not an area where it pays to shop at K-Mart.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 This whole mess is laid at the Foot of the idiot Bush by another Republican. More government oversight could have prevented it, bush gave it the one finger salute. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8780c35e-7e91-11...0077b07658.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 This whole mess is laid at the Foot of the idiot Bush by another Republican. More government oversight could have prevented it, bush gave it the one finger salute. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8780c35e-7e91-11...0077b07658.html And exactly how would that have happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 And exactly how would that have happened? The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership. In other words, they would have been forced to act responsibly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts