On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:44:12 -0500, Keith nuttle wrote:


You need to study the great depression and the effects of the New Deal.
The New Deal did nothing to stimulate the economy only prolong the
misery until WWII.

I have studied, and so have countless others, and that's the point. FDR
was flying blind during the Great Depression. We, on the other hand,
have 70 years of study to base our decisions on.


Even the liberal PBS reporters think the stimulus plan will do nothing
to create permanent jobs to get the economy out the recession. This
recession was caused by the clinton "loans for everyone" program. Until
those loans are purged from the system the economy will not truly
recover.
It is interesting to watch the liberals try to spin the issue to a
republican failure. I saw one article yesterday where 10 paragraphs of
facts of what was working to improve the economy and one sentence that
said the "proponents: of the stimulus package "thought" it would improve
the economy. The headlines stated the stimulus package would get the
economy out of the recession, absolutely not what the bulk of the
article said.

Horse ****, you haven't heard me blame the Republicans for this economic
mess, and, unlike you, I don't blame Clinton. You may want to do a
little studying yourself. There's a big difference between loans pushed
by the Community Reinvestment Act, and sub-prime loans. CRA related
lending isn't the problem.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...craloansurvey/

Sub-prime loans are, or more to the point, derivatives of sub-prime
loans. The heart of this economic collapse was greedy, incompetent
businessmen. When Lehman Brothers leveraged themselves over 33 to 1,
thinks get a little dicey when things go south. Compound that with a
herd mentality, and you get where we are. The government didn't do this,
but, hopefully, the government can get us out of this.

"thunder" wrote in message
t...


Sub-prime loans are, or more to the point, derivatives of sub-prime
loans. The heart of this economic collapse was greedy, incompetent
businessmen. When Lehman Brothers leveraged themselves over 33 to 1,
thinks get a little dicey when things go south. Compound that with a
herd mentality, and you get where we are. The government didn't do this,
but, hopefully, the government can get us out of this.


Not going to be easy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090129...20090129173404


Eisboch

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:02:40 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
et...


Sub-prime loans are, or more to the point, derivatives of sub-prime
loans. The heart of this economic collapse was greedy, incompetent
businessmen. When Lehman Brothers leveraged themselves over 33 to 1,
thinks get a little dicey when things go south. Compound that with a
herd mentality, and you get where we are. The government didn't do this,
but, hopefully, the government can get us out of this.


Not going to be easy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090129...20090129173404


Eisboch

Did I miss something? I've read that the percent of the bill going to
infrastructure is in the 5% range, yet the article above says this:

"The bulk of the bill's spending is aimed at bringing aging infrastructure
into the 21st century to preserve and improve the country's long-term
competitiveness in the global economy, creating millions of jobs in the
process."
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm

* Definition of a teenager?
God's punishment...for enjoying sex. *

On Jan 29, 3:32*pm, John H wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:02:40 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
et...

Sub-prime loans are, or more to the point, derivatives of sub-prime
loans. *The heart of this economic collapse was greedy, incompetent
businessmen. *When Lehman Brothers leveraged themselves over 33 to 1,
thinks get a little dicey when things go south. *Compound that with a
herd mentality, and you get where we are. *The government didn't do this,
but, hopefully, the government can get us out of this.

Not going to be easy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090129...radedispute_20...

Eisboch

Did I miss something? I've read that the percent of the bill going to
infrastructure is in the 5% range, yet the article above says this:

"The bulk of the bill's spending is aimed at bringing aging infrastructure
into the 21st century to preserve and improve the country's long-term
competitiveness in the global economy, creating millions of jobs in the
process."
--
John H

For a great time, go here first...http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm

* *Definition of a teenager?
* * *God's punishment...for enjoying sex. * *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

5%, that's it... No one has shown anything to dispute this.. They
have said it, but Lobsta' boats don't count...

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:41:38 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:


5%, that's it... No one has shown anything to dispute this.. They have
said it, but Lobsta' boats don't count...

It's considerably more than 5%.

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?
bpid=133150&t=01001019292467236494

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:25:10 -0600, thunder wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:44:12 -0500, Keith nuttle wrote:


You need to study the great depression and the effects of the New Deal.
The New Deal did nothing to stimulate the economy only prolong the
misery until WWII.

I have studied, and so have countless others, and that's the point. FDR
was flying blind during the Great Depression. We, on the other hand,
have 70 years of study to base our decisions on.


Even the liberal PBS reporters think the stimulus plan will do nothing
to create permanent jobs to get the economy out the recession. This
recession was caused by the clinton "loans for everyone" program. Until
those loans are purged from the system the economy will not truly
recover.
It is interesting to watch the liberals try to spin the issue to a
republican failure. I saw one article yesterday where 10 paragraphs of
facts of what was working to improve the economy and one sentence that
said the "proponents: of the stimulus package "thought" it would improve
the economy. The headlines stated the stimulus package would get the
economy out of the recession, absolutely not what the bulk of the
article said.

Horse ****, you haven't heard me blame the Republicans for this economic
mess, and, unlike you, I don't blame Clinton. You may want to do a
little studying yourself. There's a big difference between loans pushed
by the Community Reinvestment Act, and sub-prime loans. CRA related
lending isn't the problem.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...craloansurvey/

Sub-prime loans are, or more to the point, derivatives of sub-prime
loans. The heart of this economic collapse was greedy, incompetent
businessmen. When Lehman Brothers leveraged themselves over 33 to 1,
thinks get a little dicey when things go south. Compound that with a
herd mentality, and you get where we are. The government didn't do this,
but, hopefully, the government can get us out of this.

Thunder, you need to pay just a little attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36n...eature=related

The regulators weren't allowed to do their job.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm

* Definition of a teenager?
God's punishment...for enjoying sex. *

"John H" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:25:10 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:44:12 -0500, Keith nuttle wrote:


You need to study the great depression and the effects of the New Deal.
The New Deal did nothing to stimulate the economy only prolong the
misery until WWII.

I have studied, and so have countless others, and that's the point. FDR
was flying blind during the Great Depression. We, on the other hand,
have 70 years of study to base our decisions on.


Even the liberal PBS reporters think the stimulus plan will do nothing
to create permanent jobs to get the economy out the recession. This
recession was caused by the clinton "loans for everyone" program. Until
those loans are purged from the system the economy will not truly
recover.
It is interesting to watch the liberals try to spin the issue to a
republican failure. I saw one article yesterday where 10 paragraphs of
facts of what was working to improve the economy and one sentence that
said the "proponents: of the stimulus package "thought" it would improve
the economy. The headlines stated the stimulus package would get the
economy out of the recession, absolutely not what the bulk of the
article said.

Horse ****, you haven't heard me blame the Republicans for this economic
mess, and, unlike you, I don't blame Clinton. You may want to do a
little studying yourself. There's a big difference between loans pushed
by the Community Reinvestment Act, and sub-prime loans. CRA related
lending isn't the problem.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...craloansurvey/

Sub-prime loans are, or more to the point, derivatives of sub-prime
loans. The heart of this economic collapse was greedy, incompetent
businessmen. When Lehman Brothers leveraged themselves over 33 to 1,
thinks get a little dicey when things go south. Compound that with a
herd mentality, and you get where we are. The government didn't do this,
but, hopefully, the government can get us out of this.

Thunder, you need to pay just a little attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36n...eature=related

The regulators weren't allowed to do their job.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm

* Definition of a teenager?
God's punishment...for enjoying sex. *

Regulators did not want to do the job. You have Geitner, the head of the
New York Fed and not the treasury secretary. He did not say anything about
the bad banking practices while at the Fed. Rubin, O's economic advisor,
made a 300 hundred million while decimating the shareholder value at
Citigroup. He is also one of the Fed's owners from what I understand.
Paulson, made $700 million on the bad loans. Seems as if one of the things
these slimeballs all have in common is they are Harvard people. Goldman
Sacs another Fed owner and Harvard entity collateralized the loans in the
first place.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:31:38 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:25:10 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:44:12 -0500, Keith nuttle wrote:


You need to study the great depression and the effects of the New Deal.
The New Deal did nothing to stimulate the economy only prolong the
misery until WWII.

I have studied, and so have countless others, and that's the point. FDR
was flying blind during the Great Depression. We, on the other hand,
have 70 years of study to base our decisions on.


Even the liberal PBS reporters think the stimulus plan will do nothing
to create permanent jobs to get the economy out the recession. This
recession was caused by the clinton "loans for everyone" program. Until
those loans are purged from the system the economy will not truly
recover.
It is interesting to watch the liberals try to spin the issue to a
republican failure. I saw one article yesterday where 10 paragraphs of
facts of what was working to improve the economy and one sentence that
said the "proponents: of the stimulus package "thought" it would improve
the economy. The headlines stated the stimulus package would get the
economy out of the recession, absolutely not what the bulk of the
article said.

Horse ****, you haven't heard me blame the Republicans for this economic
mess, and, unlike you, I don't blame Clinton. You may want to do a
little studying yourself. There's a big difference between loans pushed
by the Community Reinvestment Act, and sub-prime loans. CRA related
lending isn't the problem.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...craloansurvey/

Sub-prime loans are, or more to the point, derivatives of sub-prime
loans. The heart of this economic collapse was greedy, incompetent
businessmen. When Lehman Brothers leveraged themselves over 33 to 1,
thinks get a little dicey when things go south. Compound that with a
herd mentality, and you get where we are. The government didn't do this,
but, hopefully, the government can get us out of this.

Thunder, you need to pay just a little attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36n...eature=related

The regulators weren't allowed to do their job.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm

* Definition of a teenager?
God's punishment...for enjoying sex. *

Regulators did not want to do the job. You have Geitner, the head of the
New York Fed and not the treasury secretary. He did not say anything about
the bad banking practices while at the Fed. Rubin, O's economic advisor,
made a 300 hundred million while decimating the shareholder value at
Citigroup. He is also one of the Fed's owners from what I understand.
Paulson, made $700 million on the bad loans. Seems as if one of the things
these slimeballs all have in common is they are Harvard people. Goldman
Sacs another Fed owner and Harvard entity collateralized the loans in the
first place.


The Freddie and Fanny regulators did! And they got their butts busted for
it.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm

* Definition of a teenager?
God's punishment...for enjoying sex. *