Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

As the banking, investment banking, wall street,, on the on .. goes down the
****ter .. and the economy follows ... for those that have some cash, I'm
thinking that there will be some super deals on boats [sailboat, in
particular].

What you say.

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

"Thomas, Spring Point Light" wrote in message
news:WAiAk.367$pp3.134@trnddc06...
As the banking, investment banking, wall street,, on the on .. goes down
the
****ter .. and the economy follows ... for those that have some cash,
I'm
thinking that there will be some super deals on boats [sailboat, in
particular].

What you say.
Large gas hungry motor boats will take the greatest hit-but who is going to
want to buy?
There will be a move towards sailboats by people without any clue how to
sail them.

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

Say, Tom, did I see Andiomo back on the mooring at Willard Beach or was it
just a similar looking boat?

--
Roger Long

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

"Gogarty" wrote

So you may be able to buy a boat cheap but you might have to pay cash for
it.


At probable prices, that shouldn't be a problem for anyone who can afford
the upkeep and maintenance. Used sailboats are going to be like some of
those cell phone deals or how Gillette became big in razor blades. The boat
will be essentially free but it's still going to cost a lot to keep and
maintain them. Yard and dockage costs are the same for the 32 footer I
bought for 15 grand as they would be for a brand new, 250 grand, 32 foot
Morris.

OTOH the stock of used sailboats got dramatically reduced last week except
for those interested in restoration projects.

--
Roger Long

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

*So you may be able to buy a boat cheap but you might have to pay cash for
it.

At probable prices, that shouldn't be a problem for anyone who can afford
the upkeep and maintenance. *

But the cost of inflation will make sure that the $$$ you have are
greatly reduced in purchasing value; plus, the cost of maintenance,
etc. will escalate by the same value % of what you lost in capital
value ..... double whammy = your money is now less valuable and
everything will cost a LOT more.
Two 'characters' are essentially and primarily responsible for all
this - senate banking and house banking committees. These two vital
congressional committees for the past 10 years (!!!!!) saw that the
underpinnings of the financial system (Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac) were
increasingly weakened to the point of corrupt, gave no warnings, and
simply sat on their dead asses. The chairmen (Dodd and Frank) of
these committees are leading socialistic members of the US Congress.
This is the 'change' that everyone voted for in 2006; I hope you all
are happy now.

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

I won't touch the politics but the rest is close to my essential point.
Used sailboat prices have been incredibly depressed over the last decade
because just the cost of keeping a boat is too high for something many
people only end up using once or twice a year. Inflation and investment
losses will make it impossible for many people to keep maintaining the boats
they have and prices will go even lower, a trap for dreamers.

I used to have people come to me who wanted to convert my designs to ferro
cement because they just figured out they could build a 45 foot hull for
$6000. I'd say, "Look at your financial situation. If someone GAVE you a
45 foot unfinished hull right now, you would be immediately in deep
financial trouble because you would be responsible for the costs of storing
it. How are you going to find the $100,000 for materials to finish it?
(Assuming funky ferro cement style finish and outfit.) If someone gave you
an operating 45 foot boat right now you would be in immediate financial
crisis because you wouldn't be able to afford the $10,000 a year to dock and
maintain it."

It was tough watching the light of dreams die in someones eyes but it was a
necessary service.

--
Roger Long

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:52:56 -0700 (PDT), RichH said:

Two 'characters' are essentially and primarily responsible for all
this - senate banking and house banking committees. These two vital
congressional committees for the past 10 years (!!!!!) saw that the
underpinnings of the financial system (Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac) were
increasingly weakened to the point of corrupt, gave no warnings, and
simply sat on their dead asses. The chairmen (Dodd and Frank) of
these committees are leading socialistic members of the US Congress.
This is the 'change' that everyone voted for in 2006; I hope you all
are happy now.

You left Chuck Shumer out of your cavalcade of heroes. He was right there
alongside Barney a few weeks ago leading the cheering section for Fan and
Fred to buy more mortgages.

Wait a minute Dave. Didn't you tell me the gummint had nuttin to do
with the problems?
Gordon

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

"Gordon" wrote in message
m...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:52:56 -0700 (PDT), RichH said:

Two 'characters' are essentially and primarily responsible for all
this - senate banking and house banking committees. These two vital
congressional committees for the past 10 years (!!!!!) saw that the
underpinnings of the financial system (Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac) were
increasingly weakened to the point of corrupt, gave no warnings, and
simply sat on their dead asses. The chairmen (Dodd and Frank) of
these committees are leading socialistic members of the US Congress.
This is the 'change' that everyone voted for in 2006; I hope you all
are happy now.

You left Chuck Shumer out of your cavalcade of heroes. He was right there
alongside Barney a few weeks ago leading the cheering section for Fan and
Fred to buy more mortgages.

Wait a minute Dave. Didn't you tell me the gummint had nuttin to do with
the problems?
Gordon


Yeah he did, but that's typical of right-wing nuts. Even Greenspan has
admitted some responsibility.

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

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

On Sep 18, 7:16*am, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:52:56 -0700 (PDT), RichH said:

Two 'characters' are essentially and primarily responsible for all
this - senate banking and house banking committees. ...

You left Chuck Shumer out of your cavalcade of heroes. He was right there
alongside Barney a few weeks ago leading the cheering section for Fan and
Fred to buy more mortgages.

It's all political name calling at this point but
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...tory-exem.html
is interesting.

To put a sailing bent on it my plan is to go cruising in the
developing world; a place where everyone understands that most folks
are broke.

-- Tom.

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

Duhh... Clinton did it (you pick which one) because Karl (Achtung) Rove said
so.

Yeah, they, in the developing world, know what the definition of poor is.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 18, 7:16 am, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:52:56 -0700 (PDT), RichH said:

Two 'characters' are essentially and primarily responsible for all
this - senate banking and house banking committees. ...

You left Chuck Shumer out of your cavalcade of heroes. He was right there
alongside Barney a few weeks ago leading the cheering section for Fan and
Fred to buy more mortgages.

It's all political name calling at this point but
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...tory-exem.html
is interesting.

To put a sailing bent on it my plan is to go cruising in the
developing world; a place where everyone understands that most folks
are broke.

-- Tom.



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

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

RichH wrote:
But the cost of *inflation will make sure that the $$$ you have are
greatly reduced in purchasing value; plus, the cost of maintenance,
etc. will escalate by the same value % of what you lost in capital

Just wait until Uncle Sam loses his AAA+ bond rating.

Two 'characters' are essentially and primarily responsible for all
this - senate banking and house banking committees.....
simply sat on their dead asses. *The chairmen (Dodd and Frank) of
these committees are leading socialistic members of the US Congress.
This is the 'change' that everyone voted for in 2006; I hope you all
are happy now.

I know you want to say, it, go ahead and get it out of your system...

IT'S ALL CLINTON'S FAULT!!!! ;)

The problems in the insurance & finance sector never really were cured
from the 1987 meltdown under President Reagan. It's been building a
long time; but if the smart bankers like AIG and UBS didn't see it
coming then how do you expect a bunch of dumb politicians? Especially
when most of them are being "lobbied" by the very crooks they are
supposed to be protecting us from.

Dodd & Frank may be "Socialistic," but the "free-market" Republicans
certainly share a lot of the blame... why didn't they do a better job
during the 14 years *they* had a strong majority, hmm???

I think it may be time to build a fence around Washington DC and
simply hang everybody inside from the nearest lamp post. Let God sort
'em out.

DSK

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

wrote

It's all political name calling at this point but
*http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...tory-exem.html
is interesting.


That *is* interesting, thanks.

(brief quote)
"...the events of the past year are not a mere accident, but are the
results of a conscious and willful SEC decision to allow these firms
to legally violate existing net capital rules that, in the past 30
years, had limited broker dealers debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-
to-1.
...... the five that received this special exemption? You won't be
surprised to learn that they were Goldman, Merrill, Lehman, Bear
Stearns, and Morgan Stanley. " (end quote)

I dunno if it's the same with fiscal regulations as it is with
environmental & safety regs, but federal agencies handing out 'get-out-
of-jail-free' cards defeats the whole purpose of regulation. Why
didn't the competing companies call foul, and why didn't our
supposedly free press get the word out? Betcha this was not mentioned
in any of the five's report to their stockholders, either.


To put a sailing bent on it my plan is to go cruising in the
developing world; a place where everyone understands that most folks
are broke.


Good thinking.

I lost enthusiasm for piddling around in the tribal areas, myself...
not as afraid of being knocked on the head as I am of picking up
intestinal parasites or malaria or something. Besides, it's easy to
go to someplace along the swampy south-east US coast where there
aren't any people at all.

As for good boat bargains, the window of opportunity may be rather
short, since the time frame between sellers needing cash deciding to
unload cheap, and sellers needing cash deciding to simply duck out
from under and letting the boat go to pot, may be short

An awful lot of the boats I saw destroyed in pics of Hurricane Ike's
aftermath were obviously not taken care of. Case in point- I would not
buy a boat from the sort of owner who left a roller-furler jib in
place with a hurricane imminent, no matter how good a deal it is. You
just don't know what other sorts of dumbass things he's done with/to
the boat, and those kinds of surprises are usually unpleasant.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

On 18 Sep 2008 09:24:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On a somewhat impressionistic basis, it seems to me that investment bankers
who own boats generally own power boats.

Have you ever hung out at Larchmont or American YC ? There are a lot
of them sailing dinghys and other one designs for the fun of it.

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

On Sep 18, 12:54*pm, wrote:
....
I lost enthusiasm for piddling around in the tribal areas, myself...
not as afraid of being knocked on the head as I am of picking up
intestinal parasites or malaria or something. ...

We've had a lot of good experiences in seriously tiny and remote
places, but we've had some _interesting_ talks with our travel doctor,
too. Also, had a good friend pretty much wiped out for years because
of malaria and another on permanent disability because of a horrid
belly bug. And, we hear lots of horror stories. So, I understand your
view on this. We do take some precautions --we epically try to avoid
large population centers in the 3rd world and malaria hot spots-- but
we realize that we are at enhanced risk not just from tropical rot but
from acute medical issues that would be dealt with easily in the
States but will kill you in the bush. In the Pacific Islands we've
been lucky and happy. I'm keeping an open mind about Mexico, but if
it sucks the islands are to leeward!

-- Tom.

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

The Sea of Cortez is great... pretty much untouched. Just make sure you have
fishing permits aboard. They are really picky about it. We were boarded by
the Navy, and that's all they cared about... I guess there's a poacher
problem.

When are you off?

wrote in message
...
On Sep 18, 12:54 pm, wrote:
....
I lost enthusiasm for piddling around in the tribal areas, myself...
not as afraid of being knocked on the head as I am of picking up
intestinal parasites or malaria or something. ...

We've had a lot of good experiences in seriously tiny and remote
places, but we've had some _interesting_ talks with our travel doctor,
too. Also, had a good friend pretty much wiped out for years because
of malaria and another on permanent disability because of a horrid
belly bug. And, we hear lots of horror stories. So, I understand your
view on this. We do take some precautions --we epically try to avoid
large population centers in the 3rd world and malaria hot spots-- but
we realize that we are at enhanced risk not just from tropical rot but
from acute medical issues that would be dealt with easily in the
States but will kill you in the bush. In the Pacific Islands we've
been lucky and happy. I'm keeping an open mind about Mexico, but if
it sucks the islands are to leeward!

-- Tom.



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

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:33:15 -0400, Gogarty
said:


I used to write extensively for banking and finance magazines.
Glass/Steagall
is no buzz word.

So how is Gramm-Leach-Bliley responsible for the current mortgage-related
securities problems?


I take the following from a comment on
http://www.newsweek.com/id/159346/page/1.

The Gramm-Leach-Biley Act stripped away the regulations separating banking
from investment companies, insurance companies and mortgage guaranty
companies. Those regulations were added after the Great Depression when it
became obvious that allowing banks to be in bed with the stock market was a
sure way to rig the system to collapse, as it did in 1929.

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

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

Dave wrote:

First, the description of GLB is totally inaccurate. Second, you haven't
explained how GLB is responsible for the current mortgage-related
securities problems.

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as to
precis this bill for us?

Cheers
Marty

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

First, the description of GLB is totally inaccurate. Second, you haven't
explained how GLB is responsible for the current mortgage-related
securities problems.

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as to
precis this bill for us?

Cheers
Marty


Yes. He advises regulators, so perhaps he's got a few skeletons in the
closet about the mess.

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

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

On Sep 18, 3:51*pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
....
When are you off?

Soon? :) We're planning on following the ha-ha out of SD. They take
off in the 3rd week of October. So, all else being equal we're
looking at arriving SD thenish and departing when the wx looks ok
(with a fishing license). We've still got a steering issue to get
fixed before we take off from here. So, I guess twoish weeks... Or
something else... It's starting to get cold for us tropical types so
I think that will drive us off before all that long anyway.

-- Tom.

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:25:00 -0400, Marty wrote:

Dave wrote:

First, the description of GLB is totally inaccurate. Second, you
haven't explained how GLB is responsible for the current
mortgage-related securities problems.

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as to
precis this bill for us?

what's that sound?
oh yeah...it's a deafening silence...
seemed like such a simple question too...
pity...

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

You should probably keep in mind that you'll have problems finding dock
space in places like Cabo. You'll probably be ok at La Paz. You might want
to check the last couple of issue of Lat. 38 for info about reserving spots
if that's what you're intending.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 18, 3:51 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
....
When are you off?

Soon? :) We're planning on following the ha-ha out of SD. They take
off in the 3rd week of October. So, all else being equal we're
looking at arriving SD thenish and departing when the wx looks ok
(with a fishing license). We've still got a steering issue to get
fixed before we take off from here. So, I guess twoish weeks... Or
something else... It's starting to get cold for us tropical types so
I think that will drive us off before all that long anyway.

-- Tom.



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

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

On Sep 18, 7:27*pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
You should probably keep in mind that you'll have problems finding dock
space in places like Cabo. You'll probably be ok at La Paz. You might want
to check the last couple of issue of Lat. 38 for info about reserving spots
if that's what you're intending. ...

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll check that out. We're so bad at keeping
a schedule that reservations are hard for us. We tend to prefer
anchoring (which I gather is limited there) or moorings to the dock.
Maybe there is more room on the balls than on the docks. Folks I've
talked to about Cabo have such different opinions of the place that
I'm not sure if it would be a bad thing to give it a miss if there's
no room... Thoughts?

Other tips on Mexican cruising are very welcome, too!

Cheers,

-- Tom.

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

From what I've been told, if at all possible, skip Cabo and head north to La
Paz. Between Cabo and La Paz there are a couple of places, which might be
ok. You should be able to find an anchorage near La Paz, no problem. We
started there. There are several within spitting distance. Further north,
you'll not find it to be a problem. There are some beautiful anchorages
between La Paz and Mulege, especially off the bigger islands. We got Gerry
Cunningham's charts, which were stunningly accurate and detailed. The
"official" charts I don't think have been seriously updated since the late
1800s (yes, you read that right). GPS coordinates are way off in any case.
Gerry has been all over, so if you're going to hang for a while, it would be
worth getting the other packages as well.

I'm happy to stop by and let you look, borough, etc., what I have. I'm
supposed to be in the general area next week.

We got as far as Bahia Agua Verde (about 100 nm from La Paz) before we had
to turn around. That was a beautiful, isolated spot. We didn't anchor there,
because it was crowded - one other boat, so we back-peddled to Bahia San
Marte, which was even more isolated.

I'd also recommend just about any place on Isla San Jose, Isla Partida, or
Isal Espiritu Santo. In fact, if I get a chance to do it over again, I would
stick to those three places - there are plenty of different anchorages.
There's not much on the peninsula between La Paz and Aqua Verde (well, a
couple of places, but none that great for staying unless in a pinch).

I can also scan and post a list of GPS coordinates from Gerry's
documentation. No pictures, but it's better than nothing. I have them for
Cabo, La Paz, Isla San Jose, and Aqua Verde. There are about 90 positions
listed.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 18, 7:27 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
You should probably keep in mind that you'll have problems finding dock
space in places like Cabo. You'll probably be ok at La Paz. You might want
to check the last couple of issue of Lat. 38 for info about reserving
spots
if that's what you're intending. ...

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll check that out. We're so bad at keeping
a schedule that reservations are hard for us. We tend to prefer
anchoring (which I gather is limited there) or moorings to the dock.
Maybe there is more room on the balls than on the docks. Folks I've
talked to about Cabo have such different opinions of the place that
I'm not sure if it would be a bad thing to give it a miss if there's
no room... Thoughts?

Other tips on Mexican cruising are very welcome, too!

Cheers,

-- Tom.



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

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:42:57 -0400, Gogarty
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:30:18 -0400, Wayne.B
said:

Have you ever hung out at Larchmont or American YC ? There are a lot
of them sailing dinghys and other one designs for the fun of it.

Not sure those are the kind of boats he was talking about coming on the
market at attractive prices.

I agree with you on that.

Some years ago we were entering Oyster Bay in our ratty Dawson 26
sailboat, just passing the Seawanhaka Yacht Club, when we saw a man in
the water having some difficulty. Seems he took his paddleboard out
beyond where he could manage. Had to have been a Yaleie. Nobody else
could be so supercilious even while drowning. We offered to take him to
shore on our boat. No, would not get on our boat but did accept a line
to be towed. So we towed him. No conversation. When we got close enough
to the yacht club where he could go the rest of the way himself, he cast
off. Didn't want to be seen as a rescuee. Never even said thanks. I have
always had the feeling that he was actually dressed in Ivy League
kahkies in the water. But that must be my faulty memory and imagination.

On the same topic, the NY Times had an article some years ago about a
Wall Street type and his yacht racing. In the article, this guy came
across as a total jerk. It was clear from the article that his only
interest was winning races to impress people, nothing whatever to do
with boating. When he failed to win races despite huge expenditures and
alienating everyone who knew him, his family suddenly decided it would
be better to go to the mountains, or whatever. Sold the boat.

Can't tell you how many snotty over-priviledged youngsters we have towed
ashore, to no thanks.

Maybe it's something about YOU...

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

On Sep 19, 12:04*am, "Capt. JG" wrote:
From what I've been told, if at all possible, skip Cabo and head north to La
Paz. Between Cabo and La Paz there are a couple of places, which might be
ok. You should be able to find an anchorage near La Paz, no problem. ...

I'm happy to stop by and let you look, borough, etc., what I have. I'm
supposed to be in the general area next week. ...

Thanks for all of that. I think we be getting the Cunningham CD with
waypoints. It annoys me a little that the Mexican gov't has a list of
charts with modern revisions in WGS84 but I can't find a US dealer
for them. It has been my experience in the South Pacific that NIMA
charts are horrible. Often based on 19th century surveys and not
updated since the 70's. Apparently it is the same for Mexico.
However, the French charts are great in the French possessions, NZ
charts at least have up to the week nav aids on them and BA charts are
excellent (but very, very dear). I bet Mexican charts are the best bet
in Mexican waters, too. So why can't we buy them? Ugh.

Anyway, if you are passing though please feel free to drop by anytime.

-- Tom.

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

Sure thing... not sure which day just yet. Also, I was told that the
Moorings base in La Paz can be quite helpful, even if you aren't a customer.
There's also a pretty good VHF net that's ongoing... I forget the guy who
runs it, but he monitors and helps put people in touch.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 19, 12:04 am, "Capt. JG" wrote:
From what I've been told, if at all possible, skip Cabo and head north to
La
Paz. Between Cabo and La Paz there are a couple of places, which might be
ok. You should be able to find an anchorage near La Paz, no problem. ...

I'm happy to stop by and let you look, borough, etc., what I have. I'm
supposed to be in the general area next week. ...

Thanks for all of that. I think we be getting the Cunningham CD with
waypoints. It annoys me a little that the Mexican gov't has a list of
charts with modern revisions in WGS84 but I can't find a US dealer
for them. It has been my experience in the South Pacific that NIMA
charts are horrible. Often based on 19th century surveys and not
updated since the 70's. Apparently it is the same for Mexico.
However, the French charts are great in the French possessions, NZ
charts at least have up to the week nav aids on them and BA charts are
excellent (but very, very dear). I bet Mexican charts are the best bet
in Mexican waters, too. So why can't we buy them? Ugh.

Anyway, if you are passing though please feel free to drop by anytime.

-- Tom.




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

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:25:00 -0400, Marty said:

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as to
precis this bill for us?

In the US, we call something that hasn't yet been passed by Congress and
"bill" and something that has been passed and signed into law a "law."

Much too long and complicated for an even half complete summary. GLB,
which
was passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Clinton in
1999, made some significant changes in the ways our financial institutions
may be structured. Among other things it made it somewhat easier for banks
that were well capitalized (or more accurately their holding companies) to
compete in areas outside the traditional financial services area, such as
brokerage and insurance. Generally bank holding companies were allowed to
enter these areas by becoming a "financial holding company" to own both
the
bank and separate corporations conducting these other businesses. However,
it generally left unchanged the kinds of things banks could invest in
directly.


Huh??? The Congress (both houses!) was controlled by Republicans from 1995
until recently. Sounds like revisionist history to me.

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

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
ons...
: "Dave" wrote in message
: ...
: On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:25:00 -0400, Marty said:
:
: Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as to
: precis this bill for us?
:
: In the US, we call something that hasn't yet been passed by Congress and
: "bill" and something that has been passed and signed into law a "law."
:
: Much too long and complicated for an even half complete summary. GLB,
: which
: was passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Clinton in
: 1999, made some significant changes in the ways our financial
institutions
: may be structured. Among other things it made it somewhat easier for
banks
: that were well capitalized (or more accurately their holding companies)
to
: compete in areas outside the traditional financial services area, such
as
: brokerage and insurance. Generally bank holding companies were allowed
to
: enter these areas by becoming a "financial holding company" to own both
: the
: bank and separate corporations conducting these other businesses.
However,
: it generally left unchanged the kinds of things banks could invest in
: directly.
:
:
: Huh??? The Congress (both houses!) was controlled by Republicans from 1995
: until recently. Sounds like revisionist history to me.


Revisionist history? Is that like having Google delete all those posts you
made to alt.drugs and then acting like they never existed?

PKB!!!!

--
Gregory Hall

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

On Sep 19, 11:35*am, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:25:00 -0400, Marty said:

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as to
precis this bill for us?
....
Much too long and complicated for an even half complete summary. GLB, which
was passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Clinton in
1999...

What Democrat controlled Congress?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/105th_U...tates_Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/106th_Congress
Facts have a well known liberal bias. And, just for fun:
http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/

-- Tom.

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

But the economy is in great shape! Don't forget that "fact."

wrote in message
...
On Sep 19, 11:35 am, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:25:00 -0400, Marty said:

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as to
precis this bill for us?
....
Much too long and complicated for an even half complete summary. GLB,
which
was passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Clinton in
1999...

What Democrat controlled Congress?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/105th_U...tates_Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/106th_Congress
Facts have a well known liberal bias. And, just for fun:
http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/

-- Tom.


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

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:25:00 -0400, Marty said:

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as to
precis this bill for us?

In the US, we call something that hasn't yet been passed by Congress and
"bill" and something that has been passed and signed into law a "law."

Much too long and complicated for an even half complete summary. GLB, which
was passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Clinton in
1999,


Hmmm, that would be the 106th Congress, Republican Majority, Newt
Gingrich the speaker, Thurmond President pro tempore of the Senate,
(same Congress that impeached Clinton, I thought you'd remember that!).
So having got that basic fact wrong, why should I trust the rest of
your summary?

Cheers
Martin

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

Marty wrote:
Dave wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:25:00 -0400, Marty said:

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as
to precis this bill for us?


In the US, we call something that hasn't yet been passed by Congress and
"bill" and something that has been passed and signed into law a "law."

Much too long and complicated for an even half complete summary. GLB,
which
was passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Clinton in
1999,



Hmmm, that would be the 106th Congress, Republican Majority, Newt
Gingrich the speaker, Thurmond President pro tempore of the Senate,
(same Congress that impeached Clinton, I thought you'd remember that!).
So having got that basic fact wrong, why should I trust the rest of
your summary?

Cheers
Martin


Except that Clinton wasn't impeached...

He was TRIED.

And aquitted.


--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Marty wrote:
Dave wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:25:00 -0400, Marty said:

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as
to precis this bill for us?


In the US, we call something that hasn't yet been passed by Congress and
"bill" and something that has been passed and signed into law a "law."

Much too long and complicated for an even half complete summary. GLB,
which
was passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Clinton in
1999,



Hmmm, that would be the 106th Congress, Republican Majority, Newt
Gingrich the speaker, Thurmond President pro tempore of the Senate, (same
Congress that impeached Clinton, I thought you'd remember that!). So
having got that basic fact wrong, why should I trust the rest of your
summary?

Cheers
Martin


Except that Clinton wasn't impeached...

He was TRIED.

And aquitted.


--

Richard

(remove the X to email)


He was impeached by the House and acquited by the Senate.

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

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
snip


Except that Clinton wasn't impeached...


WRONG. Clinton was impeached. You're letting your ignorance show, I'm
afraid.

im.peach \im-"pÈch\ vb [ME empechen to accuse, fr. MF empeechier to hinder,
fr. LL impedicare to fetter, fr. L pedica fetter, fr. ped-, pes foot] 1 : to
charge (a public official) before an authorized tribunal with misconduct in
office 2 : to challenge the credibility or validity of 3 : to remove from
public office for misconduct - im.peach.ment n

As you can see, you have an incomplete understanding of the word, 'impeach'.
You think it only means defintion 3. Stupid little man!

Wilbur Hubbard

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Marty wrote:
Dave wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:25:00 -0400, Marty said:

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as
to precis this bill for us?


In the US, we call something that hasn't yet been passed by Congress
and
"bill" and something that has been passed and signed into law a "law."

Much too long and complicated for an even half complete summary. GLB,
which
was passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Clinton in
1999,



Hmmm, that would be the 106th Congress, Republican Majority, Newt
Gingrich the speaker, Thurmond President pro tempore of the Senate,
(same Congress that impeached Clinton, I thought you'd remember that!).
So having got that basic fact wrong, why should I trust the rest of your
summary?

Cheers
Martin


Except that Clinton wasn't impeached...

He was TRIED.

And aquitted.


--

Richard

(remove the X to email)


He was impeached by the House and acquited by the Senate.


Wrong! Clinton was impeached by the House and Senate.

im.peach \im-"pÈch\ vb [ME empechen to accuse, fr. MF empeechier to hinder,
fr. LL impedicare to fetter, fr. L pedica fetter, fr. ped-, pes foot] 1 : to
charge (a public official) before an authorized tribunal with misconduct in
office 2 : to challenge the credibility or validity of 3 : to remove from
public office for misconduct - im.peach.ment n


Acquitted has nothing to do with anything but the third definition of
impeach. You Clintonites need to learn the language.

--
Gregory Hall

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
snip


Except that Clinton wasn't impeached...



WRONG. Clinton was impeached. You're letting your ignorance show, I'm
afraid.

im.peach \im-"pÈch\ vb [ME empechen to accuse, fr. MF empeechier to
hinder, fr. LL impedicare to fetter, fr. L pedica fetter, fr. ped-, pes
foot] 1 : to charge (a public official) before an authorized tribunal
with misconduct in office 2 : to challenge the credibility or validity
of 3 : to remove from public office for misconduct - im.peach.ment n

As you can see, you have an incomplete understanding of the word,
'impeach'. You think it only means defintion 3. Stupid little man!

Wilbur Hubbard


Maybe so.

But at least I'm not like you...

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
m...
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
snip


Except that Clinton wasn't impeached...




troll sh*t removed


Maybe so.

But at least I'm not like you...

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

Definitely not!

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

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
m...
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
snip


Except that Clinton wasn't impeached...



WRONG. Clinton was impeached. You're letting your ignorance show, I'm
afraid.

im.peach \im-"pÈch\ vb [ME empechen to accuse, fr. MF empeechier to
hinder, fr. LL impedicare to fetter, fr. L pedica fetter, fr. ped-, pes
foot] 1 : to charge (a public official) before an authorized tribunal
with misconduct in office 2 : to challenge the credibility or validity of
3 : to remove from public office for misconduct - im.peach.ment n

As you can see, you have an incomplete understanding of the word,
'impeach'. You think it only means defintion 3. Stupid little man!

Wilbur Hubbard


Maybe so.

But at least I'm not like you...

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)


And, he's completely wrong:
At the federal level, Article Two of the United States Constitution (Section
4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers
of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The
House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United
States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of
impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.


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

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:02:03 -0400, Marty said:

So having got that basic fact wrong, why should I trust the rest of
your summary?

And why should I care whether you do or not? You can certainly Google up
your own info if you wish. That law just happens to be one I work with.


'cause we own the same boat ;-o I'm playing a bit of devils advocate
here, I'll do the same to Dems too. Sometimes it looks like you let your
prejudice against anybody not Republican (or is it adulation of all
things GOP?) cloud your reasoning.

Personally, I think that great misquote "First we kill all the lawyers"
should have "Politicians" substituted for "Lawyers".

Cheers
Marty

Just a thought ;; there will be some very good bargains ..
 

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:04:25 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote:

Marty wrote:
Dave wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:25:00 -0400, Marty said:

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as
to precis this bill for us?


In the US, we call something that hasn't yet been passed by Congress and
"bill" and something that has been passed and signed into law a "law."

Much too long and complicated for an even half complete summary. GLB,
which
was passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Clinton in
1999,



Hmmm, that would be the 106th Congress, Republican Majority, Newt
Gingrich the speaker, Thurmond President pro tempore of the Senate,
(same Congress that impeached Clinton, I thought you'd remember that!).
So having got that basic fact wrong, why should I trust the rest of
your summary?

Cheers
Martin


Except that Clinton wasn't impeached...

He was TRIED.

And aquitted.

The trial is impeachment. He was impeached and aquitted.