"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:25:13 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 25/04/2010 6:10 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:06:25 -0400, wrote:



whoops! meant AIG..goldman sachs defraruded AIG...which helped the
rich bankers at GS make a fortune...passing the bill to middle class
taxpayers

but that's OK in canuck's view. no bankers are union members

You will never see a post from me that condones any kind of bailout or
any company on earth.

and i'm a realist. i realize that NOT bailing out the banks would have
led to another 29 type crash. BUT the difference between me and the
right wing is that i want to restructure the financial system so the
rich don't treat the middle class like a piggy bank. but the right
thinks the rich have done everything right, and it's all the fault of
the middle class

THAT'S the difference.

the right doesnt question the rich. the rich has no solution to keep
this from happening again. the right blames only obama. the right
thinks if we do NOTHING everything will be OK. the right has more
faith in wall street and the rich than a saint has in christ


Then these ubber rich *******s would then fire 1/2 the dead weight board
members that just suck each other off as the case in GM. The real tea
baggers in the old boys network would get the message to get back to
work or get fired.

GM is a peanut whistle in the shrieking noise of the meltdown. 25
billion vs 185 billion to AIG?

UAW, well, they would be just told to go away. You are not taxing
$10/hr people in Montana for a Detroit f---up.

what i see is union jobs in GM...and rich bankers in AIG. yet the
right focuses on GM becaus of the unions rather than AIG because those
folks are rich bankers and insurance guys.

cant help think that it's more anti-middle class sentiment on the part
of the right

The banks failing would not have caused a 1929 crash! Totally different
scenarios. The banks and their stockholders would have seen a loss of
money, and some fool with more than the FDIC insured amount may have seen a
loss, but the rest would just go on as if not much happened. The stronger
banks would have picked up the accounts of the failed banks. And if the
government had to subsidize FDIC would have been at least a trillion less
than they spent propping up the failing banks.