|
social security
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! ARE YOU READY TO TURN EVEN MORE PROGRAMS OVER TO OUR GOVERNMENT? I WOULD SAY TO THE FOLLOWING: "READ AND WEEP?" Subject:Social Security NOTE THAT LAST PARAGRAPH __ A VERY SOBERING THOUGHT __ THOMAS JEFFERSON WAS RIGHT ! Franklin Delano. Roosevelt 32nd. President, Democrat Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945 Our Social Security Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of OfficeMarch 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat,introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary, 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program, 3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year, 4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following: Dwight David Eisenhower 34th. President, Republican, Term Of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961 Insert by Vincent Peter Render, If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year thatCongress voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend. If I recall correctly, it was a democratically Controlled Congress. (You do recall correctly) From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for. Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th. President, Democrat Term Of Office:November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969 Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it? Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled House and Senate. Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? Answer: The Democratic Party. William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton) 42nd. President Democrat Term of Office:January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 So we didn't get as much of a tax break under Clinton as we thought, did we? Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) 45th. Vice President Democrat Term of Office:January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US . James Earl Carter, Jr(Jimmy Carter) 39th. President, Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants? AND MY FAVORITE: Answer: That's right! James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) (Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981) and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers. AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!! Thomas Jefferson 3rd. President, Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1801 to January 20, 1809 'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have..' - Thomas Jefferson |
social security
Ken Marino wrote:
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! ARE YOU READY TO TURN EVEN MORE PROGRAMS OVER TO OUR GOVERNMENT? I WOULD SAY TO THE FOLLOWING: "READ AND WEEP?" Subject:Social Security NOTE THAT LAST PARAGRAPH __ A VERY SOBERING THOUGHT __ THOMAS JEFFERSON WAS RIGHT ! Franklin Delano. Roosevelt 32nd. President, Democrat Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945 Our Social Security Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of OfficeMarch 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat,introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary, 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program, 3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year, 4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following: Dwight David Eisenhower 34th. President, Republican, Term Of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961 Insert by Vincent Peter Render, If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year thatCongress voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend. If I recall correctly, it was a democratically Controlled Congress. (You do recall correctly) From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for. Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th. President, Democrat Term Of Office:November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969 Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it? Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled House and Senate. Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? Answer: The Democratic Party. William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton) 42nd. President Democrat Term of Office:January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 So we didn't get as much of a tax break under Clinton as we thought, did we? Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) 45th. Vice President Democrat Term of Office:January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US . James Earl Carter, Jr(Jimmy Carter) 39th. President, Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants? AND MY FAVORITE: Answer: That's right! James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) (Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981) and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers. AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!! Thomas Jefferson 3rd. President, Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1801 to January 20, 1809 'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have..' - Thomas Jefferson You are confusing them with facts. I believe that when I start working it was called social security insurance. Then the democrats gobbled it up for general spending. |
social security
"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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
social security
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. |
social security
"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 |
social security
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:30:23 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: "Ken Marino" wrote in message news:SMKdnVvALfSHc5zUnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@earthlink. com... bs snipped What statement from Ken were you replying to, Jon? The original one in this thread, since it was just a rehashed rant. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
social security
wrote in message
... On 24 Oct 2008 18:02:01 -0500, Dave wrote: On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:30:23 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: "Ken Marino" wrote in message news:SMKdnVvALfSHc5zUnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@earthlink .com... bs snipped What statement from Ken were you replying to, Jon? What statement from Jon are you so worried about? It was in the snipped part. Dave wants the full monty when it suits him. Sorry for the bad pun. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
social security
"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 |
social security
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. |
social security
"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 |
social security
"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 |
social security
"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 |
social security
"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 |
social security
"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 |
social security
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:04:52 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: 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. Hey, Jon, I'm listening for you to supply that explanation. So far all I'm getting is deafening silence. "Few pin all the blame for the current crisis on the repeal of Glass-Steagall or expect its wall of separation to return. Steven Kyle, associate professor of economics at Cornell University, says re-imposing that wall with the "sledgehammer or meat-axe approach of the 30s" would not be advisable, but for Congress to have "cut that wall and replaced it with nothing was a bad idea." "There's no question in my mind that there was inadequate regulation which led to this mess," says Kyle. "If you look at financial history, certainly the private market does self-regulate, but with periodic crashes, and we don't like that." -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
social security
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:16:06 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: Hey, Jon, I'm listening for you to supply that explanation. So far all I'm getting is deafening silence. "Few pin all the blame for the current crisis on the repeal of Glass-Steagall or expect its wall of separation to return. Steven Kyle, associate professor of economics at Cornell University, says re-imposing that wall with the "sledgehammer or meat-axe approach of the 30s" would not be advisable, but for Congress to have "cut that wall and replaced it with nothing was a bad idea." "There's no question in my mind that there was inadequate regulation which led to this mess," says Kyle. "If you look at financial history, certainly the private market does self-regulate, but with periodic crashes, and we don't like that." Looks to me like you've just proved my point far better than I could,Jon Even your academic "source" doesn't claim that the repeal of Glass Steagall had anything to do with the mortgage melt-down. His first sentence is most enlightening, since it confirms what I've been saying all along. And like you he simply says it's "inadequate regulation" that caused the problem, apparently expecting people to believe him without the need to get into messy specifics like identifying what "inadequate regulation" he has in mind, and how the alleged inadequacy is the result of specific changes. I'd be happy to discuss the impact of other changed regulations on the mortgage problem if you'd just tell us what changes you have in mind. I think your "expert" pretty much drove the last nail in the coffin of your Glass Steagall claims. I never claimed that Glass Steagall was the sole cause and you know it. Lying isn't helping your cause. I claimed and I and others with greater expertise than I claim that deregulation has significantly contributed to the debacle. If you choose not to believe it, fine with me, but don't distort my views toward your silly point of view. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
social security
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:19:37 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Dave" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:16:06 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: Hey, Jon, I'm listening for you to supply that explanation. So far all I'm getting is deafening silence. "Few pin all the blame for the current crisis on the repeal of Glass-Steagall or expect its wall of separation to return. Steven Kyle, associate professor of economics at Cornell University, says re-imposing that wall with the "sledgehammer or meat-axe approach of the 30s" would not be advisable, but for Congress to have "cut that wall and replaced it with nothing was a bad idea." "There's no question in my mind that there was inadequate regulation which led to this mess," says Kyle. "If you look at financial history, certainly the private market does self-regulate, but with periodic crashes, and we don't like that." Looks to me like you've just proved my point far better than I could,Jon Even your academic "source" doesn't claim that the repeal of Glass Steagall had anything to do with the mortgage melt-down. His first sentence is most enlightening, since it confirms what I've been saying all along. And like you he simply says it's "inadequate regulation" that caused the problem, apparently expecting people to believe him without the need to get into messy specifics like identifying what "inadequate regulation" he has in mind, and how the alleged inadequacy is the result of specific changes. I'd be happy to discuss the impact of other changed regulations on the mortgage problem if you'd just tell us what changes you have in mind. I think your "expert" pretty much drove the last nail in the coffin of your Glass Steagall claims. I never claimed that Glass Steagall was the sole cause and you know it. Lying isn't helping your cause. I claimed and I and others with greater expertise than I claim that deregulation has significantly contributed to the debacle. If you choose not to believe it, fine with me, but don't distort my views toward your silly point of view. Dave also keeps changing what he calls the "crisis". Now it's the "Mortgage Crisis", as if the only problem with the economy right now is due to mortgages and nothing else matters. |
social security
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:19:37 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: I never claimed that Glass Steagall was the sole cause and you know it. Nor did I say you did. However, you did say: 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! So let me give you another shot at it. What "legislation that's been around for decades" were you referring to, and how did that legislation's being in your words "removed" contribute to the mortgage melt-down? Asked and answered. Also, I'll repeat... do your own research! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
social security
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:49:06 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: So let me give you another shot at it. What "legislation that's been around for decades" were you referring to, and how did that legislation's being in your words "removed" contribute to the mortgage melt-down? Asked and answered. Please direct me to the message in which you claim the question was answered. Also, I'll repeat... do your own research! As I've previously pointed out, Jon, I have no need to research the question. I know you're full of **** because I'm very familiar with bank regulation. Sorry, I don't have it in my list. Here are some suggestions for a quick read. http://www.aei.org/books/bookID.272,...ook_detail.asp http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insigh...110150207.html http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs....014/FEATURES05 Even Greenspan took some responsibility recently. Oh, and I shouldn't have claimed you lied... mislead, fibbed, but lie was too strong. I apologize. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
social security
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:49:06 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: So let me give you another shot at it. What "legislation that's been around for decades" were you referring to, and how did that legislation's being in your words "removed" contribute to the mortgage melt-down? Asked and answered. Please direct me to the message in which you claim the question was answered. Also, I'll repeat... do your own research! As I've previously pointed out, Jon, I have no need to research the question. I know you're full of **** because I'm very familiar with bank regulation. As an interesting aside, recently the Canadian banking system was rated as the soundest in the world, the primary reason given: Canadian banks face the strictest regulations in the world.. Food for thought. Cheers Martin |
social security
"Marty" wrote in message ...
Dave wrote: On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:49:06 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: So let me give you another shot at it. What "legislation that's been around for decades" were you referring to, and how did that legislation's being in your words "removed" contribute to the mortgage melt-down? Asked and answered. Please direct me to the message in which you claim the question was answered. Also, I'll repeat... do your own research! As I've previously pointed out, Jon, I have no need to research the question. I know you're full of **** because I'm very familiar with bank regulation. As an interesting aside, recently the Canadian banking system was rated as the soundest in the world, the primary reason given: Canadian banks face the strictest regulations in the world.. Food for thought. Cheers Martin Yeah, but you Canadians eat moose! http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question...3175737AAgrCZE -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
social security
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:49:06 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: So let me give you another shot at it. What "legislation that's been around for decades" were you referring to, and how did that legislation's being in your words "removed" contribute to the mortgage melt-down? Asked and answered. Please direct me to the message in which you claim the question was answered. Also, I'll repeat... do your own research! As I've previously pointed out, Jon, I have no need to research the question. I know you're full of **** because I'm very familiar with bank regulation. As an interesting aside, recently the Canadian banking system was rated as the soundest in the world, the primary reason given: Canadian banks face the strictest regulations in the world.. Food for thought. Cheers Martin Yeah, but you Canadians eat moose! http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question...3175737AAgrCZE Indeed, some of us do. I have experience in Foreign Affairs, I can see a foreign country from my house, the USA! Cheers Martin |
social security
"Marty" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Marty" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:49:06 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: So let me give you another shot at it. What "legislation that's been around for decades" were you referring to, and how did that legislation's being in your words "removed" contribute to the mortgage melt-down? Asked and answered. Please direct me to the message in which you claim the question was answered. Also, I'll repeat... do your own research! As I've previously pointed out, Jon, I have no need to research the question. I know you're full of **** because I'm very familiar with bank regulation. As an interesting aside, recently the Canadian banking system was rated as the soundest in the world, the primary reason given: Canadian banks face the strictest regulations in the world.. Food for thought. Cheers Martin Yeah, but you Canadians eat moose! http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question...3175737AAgrCZE Indeed, some of us do. I have experience in Foreign Affairs, I can see a foreign country from my house, the USA! Cheers Martin I sea... hmmmm.... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com