On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:30:23 -0700, Capt. JG wrote:

"Ken Marino" wrote in message
m...

bs snipped

The bottom line... is the country better off now and headed in the right
direction vs. when Clinton was in office. If you believe it is, vote for
McCain/Palin. If you believe it isn't, vote for Obama/Biden. If you're
still unsure vote for Nader and you'll figure it out after January 20th
and Bush is reelected.

That is such a wrong analogy. The question is who do we trust to correct
it, not who caused the problem. The problems happened with Bush, but were
also caused by liberal policies. McCain is the better man among our
choices. I agree he isn't the best choice, but is miles ahead of Obama
and his socialistic ideas for America.

"Ken Marino" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:30:23 -0700, Capt. JG wrote:

"Ken Marino" wrote in message
m...

bs snipped

The bottom line... is the country better off now and headed in the right
direction vs. when Clinton was in office. If you believe it is, vote for
McCain/Palin. If you believe it isn't, vote for Obama/Biden. If you're
still unsure vote for Nader and you'll figure it out after January 20th
and Bush is reelected.

That is such a wrong analogy. The question is who do we trust to correct
it, not who caused the problem. The problems happened with Bush, but were
also caused by liberal policies. McCain is the better man among our
choices. I agree he isn't the best choice, but is miles ahead of Obama
and his socialistic ideas for America.


Well, I don't think it's completely wrong, but I understand your point. It's
not just about who caused it. The problems happened under Bush and were
caused by fake conservative policies. McCain was among those who advocated
for the failed policies of deregulation, but he wasn't alone either on the
Republican side or on the other side. Certainly, there is a level of
complicity on both sides. The problem is that the Republicans have been in
charge for the last 10 years, and they had plenty of opportunity to assert
true conservative fiscal measures, but they didn't.

You claim that McCain is the better choice, but history shows that his 26
years in Congress doesn't support that notion. He used "poor judgement"
during the Keating affair. He, by his own words, voted 90% with Bush. After
his loss in 2000 to Bush, he wanted to roll back the tax cuts. I thought
that was correct. Now, he's totally against such a roll-back. I certainly
agree he's not the best choice. And, I still don't understand this
"socialist" drumbeat. McCain voted for the crappy bailout and in the same
breath calls gov't intervention a bad thing and socialist. This makes no
sense.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:12:29 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

McCain was among those who advocated
for the failed policies of deregulation,

So long as people buy into that kind of superficial nonsense, the problem
won't be solved. There needs to be some creative thinking about how to
restructure our financial system so that there is no such thing as a bank
too big to fail.

There are a lot of mortgage backed assets out there now that are changing
hands, when they do change hands, at far less than their risk and
projected
cash flows justify. That means there are some big profit opportunities for
the right buyer.

There is also a great deal of capital sitting on the sidelines that could
be matched up with those assets. The objective should be to get the
undervalued assets out of the hands of the "too big to fail" institutions
and into the hands of a large number of smaller players funded by the
capital on the sidelines.

That means that in one fashion or another those "too big to fail"
institutions have to be allowed to fail, and their assets split up into a
number of smaller but healthy institutions.

Empty-headed slogans about the supposed evils of deregulation (a la
Democrats), or "corruption" or "greed" (a la McCain) aren't going to get
us
there.


I agree with much of this, except that I do believe a lot of this could have
been prevented or mitigated by regulations that were either abandoned or
ignored. And, there was certainly plenty of corruption and greed. McCain
knows all about that, having been involved up to his eyeballs with Keating.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:56:48 -0700, Capt. JG wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:12:29 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

McCain was among those who advocated
for the failed policies of deregulation,

So long as people buy into that kind of superficial nonsense, the
problem won't be solved. There needs to be some creative thinking about
how to restructure our financial system so that there is no such thing
as a bank too big to fail.

There are a lot of mortgage backed assets out there now that are
changing hands, when they do change hands, at far less than their risk
and projected
cash flows justify. That means there are some big profit opportunities
for the right buyer.

There is also a great deal of capital sitting on the sidelines that
could be matched up with those assets. The objective should be to get
the undervalued assets out of the hands of the "too big to fail"
institutions and into the hands of a large number of smaller players
funded by the capital on the sidelines.

That means that in one fashion or another those "too big to fail"
institutions have to be allowed to fail, and their assets split up into
a number of smaller but healthy institutions.

Empty-headed slogans about the supposed evils of deregulation (a la
Democrats), or "corruption" or "greed" (a la McCain) aren't going to
get us
there.


I agree with much of this, except that I do believe a lot of this could
have been prevented or mitigated by regulations that were either
abandoned or ignored. And, there was certainly plenty of corruption and
greed. McCain knows all about that, having been involved up to his
eyeballs with Keating.

keating had nothig to do with the current problem caused by dem's
insisting that people that couldn't afford a loan had to be given one
anyways, just to be fair.

"Ken Marino" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:56:48 -0700, Capt. JG wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:12:29 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

McCain was among those who advocated
for the failed policies of deregulation,

So long as people buy into that kind of superficial nonsense, the
problem won't be solved. There needs to be some creative thinking about
how to restructure our financial system so that there is no such thing
as a bank too big to fail.

There are a lot of mortgage backed assets out there now that are
changing hands, when they do change hands, at far less than their risk
and projected
cash flows justify. That means there are some big profit opportunities
for the right buyer.

There is also a great deal of capital sitting on the sidelines that
could be matched up with those assets. The objective should be to get
the undervalued assets out of the hands of the "too big to fail"
institutions and into the hands of a large number of smaller players
funded by the capital on the sidelines.

That means that in one fashion or another those "too big to fail"
institutions have to be allowed to fail, and their assets split up into
a number of smaller but healthy institutions.

Empty-headed slogans about the supposed evils of deregulation (a la
Democrats), or "corruption" or "greed" (a la McCain) aren't going to
get us
there.


I agree with much of this, except that I do believe a lot of this could
have been prevented or mitigated by regulations that were either
abandoned or ignored. And, there was certainly plenty of corruption and
greed. McCain knows all about that, having been involved up to his
eyeballs with Keating.

keating had nothig to do with the current problem caused by dem's
insisting that people that couldn't afford a loan had to be given one
anyways, just to be fair.


Keating have very much to do with the current problem, supported by McCain
who has apparently learned little from his humilation.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:56:48 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I agree with much of this, except that I do believe a lot of this could
have
been prevented or mitigated by regulations that were either abandoned or
ignored.

Yet you've repeatedly failed to corroborate that belief with specifics,
choosing instead to fling about without amplification some ill-informed
general references repeal of a 1930s statute that no knowledgeable
observer
would suggest had any impact on the current crisis.


Squirm all you want, but the fact remains that McCain was responsible for
much of the deregulation that lead directly to the financial meltdown we're
experiencing. McCain, by his own words, supported Bush 90% of the time. Bush
was a disaster on so many levels that even if McCain was 5% complicit, he
should resign from the Presidential race and the Senate immediately.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:50:16 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

McCain was responsible for
much of the deregulation that lead directly to the financial meltdown
we're
experiencing.

And of course you again fail to identify any such deregulation. Where's
the
beef, Jon?


Do your own research! He claims he was anti-regulation and I take him at his
word. Don't you?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:34:47 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

And of course you again fail to identify any such deregulation. Where's
the
beef, Jon?


Do your own research!

No need to, Jon. I'm quite familiar with bank regulation. Deal with it
daily. That's why I asked the question--to demonstrate that you haven't a
clue about financial regulation or deregulation.


So, you're now claiming that removing legislation that's been around for
decades didn't significantly contribute to the melt-down. Talk about fantasy
land!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 18:38:17 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

No need to, Jon. I'm quite familiar with bank regulation. Deal with it
daily. That's why I asked the question--to demonstrate that you haven't
a
clue about financial regulation or deregulation.


So, you're now claiming that removing legislation that's been around for
decades didn't significantly contribute to the melt-down. Talk about
fantasy
land!

I'm not simply claiming it--it's true. I've explained elsewhere why that's
the case. And despite my repeated requests you have come forward with no
explanation whatever of any reason why the Glass-Steagall's replacement by
Gramm-Leach_Bliley's holding company provisions had any impact on the
mortgage crisis. There's a whole universe of liberal blogs out there
making
that claim, and not a one that I've seen has come up with even a
semi-credible basis for it. They simply chant "deregulation" over and over
like some magic incantation, apparently relying on the principle that if
you
repeat a lie often enough and loud enough people will eventually believe
it.


Yep, it's fantasy time for you. You need to stop listing to the
right-wingnut financiers.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com