wf3h wrote:
On Mar 21, 3:24 pm, BAR wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:44:54 -0400, BAR wrote:
Are you more concerned with punishing individuals who work at AIG or are
you more concerned with AIG becoming a healthy private enterprise again?
I think AIG is done. I think it's on government life support until they
can safely pull the plug. It was "too big to fail", it failed. Do you
really want to see that monster on the loose again? Break it up, and
sell the parts. Let them start over.
We, the US tax payers could have saved 150 billion dollars if we had let
AIG go into bankruptcy last fall. But, Geithner and Paulson stepped and
and put forth the view that AIG was too big to save. Barney Frank and
Chris Dodd had to earn the political contributions they received from AIG..

uh...no. the first AIG bailout happened under president bush and
treasury secretary paulson. and john mccain was the 3rd greatest
recipient of money from AIG.

You haven't been paying attention have you. I have always said McCain is
an idiot. I seriously doubt that McCain's mother voted for him for
President.

get your facts straight. the fact is, deregulation helped AIG get so
big that, if it failed, it would have destroyed the financial system
of the US.

Blame Congress, they are the ones who wrote the legislation that enabled
AIG to become as big as it did. When you let a company get into two many
different areas of financial products you get these behemoth monsters.

The free market folks, like me, wanted to clear a path for AIG and the
to the nearest bankruptcy court.

and since there is NO free market in the US, your grimm's fairy tale
view of the economy is touching. your mother read you milton friedman
at bedtime?


You want the same bureaucrats in DC who buy $600 hammers and $1000
toilets to run the economy?

On Mar 21, 3:51*pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Mar 21, 3:24 pm, BAR wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:44:54 -0400, BAR wrote:
Are you more concerned with punishing individuals who work at AIG or are
you more concerned with AIG becoming a healthy private enterprise again?
I think AIG is done. *I think it's on government life support until they
can safely pull the plug. *It was "too big to fail", it failed. *Do you
really want to see that monster on the loose again? *Break it up, and
sell the parts. *Let them start over.
We, the US tax payers could have saved 150 billion dollars if we had let

uh...no. the first AIG bailout happened under president bush and
treasury secretary paulson. and john mccain was the 3rd greatest
recipient of money from AIG.

You haven't been paying attention have you. I have always said McCain is
an idiot. I seriously doubt that McCain's mother voted for him for
President.

well, then, complaining about people who actually are trying to help
the middle class instead of destroying it as republicans have done for
8 years isn't getting you anywhere is it?


get your facts straight. the fact is, deregulation helped AIG get so
big that, if it failed, it would have destroyed the financial system
of the US.

Blame Congress, they are the ones who wrote the legislation that enabled
AIG to become as big as it did. When you let a company get into two many
different areas of financial products you get these behemoth monsters.

and the reason congress did this is that reagan and milton friedman
manufactured the myth of the 'free' market, unregulated, unhampered by
unions, would strengthen the US economy.

it had exactly the opposite effect. the middle class is being
destroyed. the rich got amazingly richer.


The free market folks, like me, wanted to clear a path for AIG and the
to the nearest bankruptcy court.

and since there is NO free market in the US, your grimm's fairy tale
view of the economy is touching. your mother read you milton friedman
at bedtime?

You want the same bureaucrats in DC who buy $600 hammers and $1000
toilets to run the economy?-

they have been running it for the last 8 years. what planet did you
just come from?

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 3:51 pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Mar 21, 3:24 pm, BAR wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:44:54 -0400, BAR wrote:
Are you more concerned with punishing individuals who work at AIG or
are
you more concerned with AIG becoming a healthy private enterprise
again?
I think AIG is done. I think it's on government life support until
they
can safely pull the plug. It was "too big to fail", it failed. Do you
really want to see that monster on the loose again? Break it up, and
sell the parts. Let them start over.
We, the US tax payers could have saved 150 billion dollars if we had
let

uh...no. the first AIG bailout happened under president bush and
treasury secretary paulson. and john mccain was the 3rd greatest
recipient of money from AIG.

You haven't been paying attention have you. I have always said McCain is
an idiot. I seriously doubt that McCain's mother voted for him for
President.

well, then, complaining about people who actually are trying to help
the middle class instead of destroying it as republicans have done for
8 years isn't getting you anywhere is it?


get your facts straight. the fact is, deregulation helped AIG get so
big that, if it failed, it would have destroyed the financial system
of the US.

Blame Congress, they are the ones who wrote the legislation that enabled
AIG to become as big as it did. When you let a company get into two many
different areas of financial products you get these behemoth monsters.

and the reason congress did this is that reagan and milton friedman
manufactured the myth of the 'free' market, unregulated, unhampered by
unions, would strengthen the US economy.

it had exactly the opposite effect. the middle class is being
destroyed. the rich got amazingly richer.


The free market folks, like me, wanted to clear a path for AIG and the
to the nearest bankruptcy court.

and since there is NO free market in the US, your grimm's fairy tale
view of the economy is touching. your mother read you milton friedman
at bedtime?

You want the same bureaucrats in DC who buy $600 hammers and $1000
toilets to run the economy?-

they have been running it for the last 8 years. what planet did you
just come from?

They been running it longer than 8 years. Was under Clinton's watch where
the worst thing happened, and it was Clinton's Sec of treasury that promoted
it. Repeal of Glass-Steagall act. Same Mr. Rubin who put Citigroup in such
peril.

On Mar 21, 9:28*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message


they have been running it for the last 8 years. what planet did you
just come from?

They been running it longer than 8 years. *Was under Clinton's watch where
the worst thing happened, and it was Clinton's Sec of treasury that promoted
it. *Repeal of Glass-Steagall act. *Same Mr. Rubin who put Citigroup in such
peril.-

it was a republican congress, after they impeached him, and he was
weakened, that passed the 'plunder the middle class' bill. it was phil
gramm, whose wife was a high executive for enron (which reated the
middle class like the visigoths treated rome) that introduced the
fairy tale allowing credit default swaps to exist unregulated. this
was after the GOP for 30 years passed tax reduction after tax
reduction for the ultra wealthy and passed the bill to the middle
class.

as the nobel prize winning economist paul krugman pointed it, it's as
if for every year of the last 30, every middle class family sent a
check for $10,000 to the richest 0.1% of americans.

"wf3h" wrote in message
...

as the nobel prize winning economist paul krugman pointed it, it's as
if for every year of the last 30, every middle class family sent a
check for $10,000 to the richest 0.1% of americans.

--------------------------------------

Bull****.

"It's as if" is not "as it is".

The rich got richer because the world got richer. Wealth was created, not
redistributed from the middle class. I agree that wealthy people are
typically in a better position to gain more wealth through wealth creation,
but they are not "taking it" from middle class.

Where you people get this goofy idea, I don't know.

BTW, Some of the "facts" that are throw around are also simply not true.
In reality, the upper 20 percent (wealth wise) control one third of the
wealth, not the ridiculous numbers perpertuated by some, like "the upper 1%
controls 80% of the nation's wealth".

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"wf3h" wrote in message
...

as the nobel prize winning economist paul krugman pointed it, it's as
if for every year of the last 30, every middle class family sent a
check for $10,000 to the richest 0.1% of americans.

--------------------------------------

Bull****.

"It's as if" is not "as it is".

The rich got richer because the world got richer. Wealth was created,
not redistributed from the middle class. I agree that wealthy people
are typically in a better position to gain more wealth through wealth
creation, but they are not "taking it" from middle class.

Where you people get this goofy idea, I don't know.


Kinda flies in the face of what you've accepted as your conventional
wisdom, eh?

The "middle class" is far worse off financially...where has its wealth
gone? Into the pockets of the wealthy.

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:

"wf3h" wrote in message
...

as the nobel prize winning economist paul krugman pointed it, it's as
if for every year of the last 30, every middle class family sent a
check for $10,000 to the richest 0.1% of americans.

--------------------------------------

Bull****.

"It's as if" is not "as it is".

The rich got richer because the world got richer. Wealth was created,
not redistributed from the middle class. I agree that wealthy people are
typically in a better position to gain more wealth through wealth
creation, but they are not "taking it" from middle class.

Where you people get this goofy idea, I don't know.


Kinda flies in the face of what you've accepted as your conventional
wisdom, eh?

The "middle class" is far worse off financially...where has its wealth
gone? Into the pockets of the wealthy.

Nonsense. The wealthy have increased their wealth at a rate faster than
inflation.
The middle class has not been able to do the same in many cases, although
over-all the middle class is still better off today than the middle class of
say, 30 or 40 years ago.

But don't confuse the issue. The wealthy (other than crooks and thieves
like Madoff) aren't taking money away from the middle class. They are
creating new wealth.

What is at odds with fairness is the ability to "get richer". The middle
class should enjoy the same opportunities in terms of fairness. Some do so
anyway and become wealthier. But the notion that those who acquired wealth
did so by taking it from the middle class is just plain wrong.

Eisboch

On Mar 22, 6:53*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

...

as the nobel prize winning economist paul krugman pointed it, it's as
if for every year of the last 30, every middle class family sent a
check for $10,000 to the richest 0.1% of americans.

--------------------------------------

Bull****.

"It's as if" *is not *"as it is".

The rich got richer because the world got richer. *

funny the middle class got left out. productivity improved. more
wealth was created. and the wealthiest took it all for themselves.

Wealth was created, not
redistributed from the middle class. *I agree that wealthy people are
typically in a better position to gain more wealth through wealth creation,
but they are not "taking it" from middle class.

Where you people get this goofy idea, I don't know.

you mean other than looking at the evidence? gee. i don't know. the
rich got richer. the middle class did not. how strange of me to think
the rich got richer and the middle class did not...


BTW, *Some of the "facts" *that are throw around are also simply not true.
In reality, the upper 20 percent (wealth wise) control one third of the
wealth, not the ridiculous numbers perpertuated by some, like "the upper 1%
controls 80% of the nation's wealth".


the INCREASE in the amount of wealth held by the richest 1% over the
past 20 years in the US was incredible. hogs at the trough. now they
want the middle class to make up the difference they just lost in the
bonfire they made of the economy.

wf3h wrote:
On Mar 22, 6:53 am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

...

as the nobel prize winning economist paul krugman pointed it, it's as
if for every year of the last 30, every middle class family sent a
check for $10,000 to the richest 0.1% of americans.

--------------------------------------

Bull****.

"It's as if" is not "as it is".

The rich got richer because the world got richer.

funny the middle class got left out. productivity improved. more
wealth was created. and the wealthiest took it all for themselves.

The guy who used to live next door to me started out as a process
server. No college degree, no special training. Just a go getter type of
guy. His next job was selling commercial real estate. He didn't sit
around bemoaning his lack of education waiting for someone to give him a
job or tell him what to do. He went out and worked for hard and now
lives in a multi-million dollar home and at the age of 47 doesn't have
to work a day for the rest of his life if he doesn't want to.

He started out life in the lower middle class and is not in the top 1%.

Wealth was created, not
redistributed from the middle class. I agree that wealthy people are
typically in a better position to gain more wealth through wealth creation,
but they are not "taking it" from middle class.

Where you people get this goofy idea, I don't know.

you mean other than looking at the evidence? gee. i don't know. the
rich got richer. the middle class did not. how strange of me to think
the rich got richer and the middle class did not...

You don't seem to understand that not all people have the mental and
intellectual capacity to ascend to the top of their field or any field.
I think this is your particular affliction. This is not a bad thing it
just needs to be understood and accepted. How many Michael Jordan's have
there been and will there be? No one has come along to take Albert
Einsteins place.


BTW, Some of the "facts" that are throw around are also simply not true.
In reality, the upper 20 percent (wealth wise) control one third of the
wealth, not the ridiculous numbers perpertuated by some, like "the upper 1%
controls 80% of the nation's wealth".


the INCREASE in the amount of wealth held by the richest 1% over the
past 20 years in the US was incredible. hogs at the trough. now they
want the middle class to make up the difference they just lost in the
bonfire they made of the economy.

Jealousy rearing its ugly head? Bad career choice on your part? Stop
blaming others for your inadequacies and failures.

Calif Bill wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 3:51 pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Mar 21, 3:24 pm, BAR wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:44:54 -0400, BAR wrote:
Are you more concerned with punishing individuals who work at AIG or
are
you more concerned with AIG becoming a healthy private enterprise
again?
I think AIG is done. I think it's on government life support until
they
can safely pull the plug. It was "too big to fail", it failed. Do you
really want to see that monster on the loose again? Break it up, and
sell the parts. Let them start over.
We, the US tax payers could have saved 150 billion dollars if we had
let
uh...no. the first AIG bailout happened under president bush and
treasury secretary paulson. and john mccain was the 3rd greatest
recipient of money from AIG.
You haven't been paying attention have you. I have always said McCain is
an idiot. I seriously doubt that McCain's mother voted for him for
President.

well, then, complaining about people who actually are trying to help
the middle class instead of destroying it as republicans have done for
8 years isn't getting you anywhere is it?

get your facts straight. the fact is, deregulation helped AIG get so
big that, if it failed, it would have destroyed the financial system
of the US.
Blame Congress, they are the ones who wrote the legislation that enabled
AIG to become as big as it did. When you let a company get into two many
different areas of financial products you get these behemoth monsters.

and the reason congress did this is that reagan and milton friedman
manufactured the myth of the 'free' market, unregulated, unhampered by
unions, would strengthen the US economy.

it had exactly the opposite effect. the middle class is being
destroyed. the rich got amazingly richer.

The free market folks, like me, wanted to clear a path for AIG and the
to the nearest bankruptcy court.
and since there is NO free market in the US, your grimm's fairy tale
view of the economy is touching. your mother read you milton friedman
at bedtime?
You want the same bureaucrats in DC who buy $600 hammers and $1000
toilets to run the economy?-

they have been running it for the last 8 years. what planet did you
just come from?

They been running it longer than 8 years. Was under Clinton's watch where
the worst thing happened, and it was Clinton's Sec of treasury that promoted
it. Repeal of Glass-Steagall act. Same Mr. Rubin who put Citigroup in such
peril.

What happened to the greatest monetary mind of our time, Mr Rubin? It
seems that he has literally disappeared form public view since Citigroup
took a nose dive towards insolvency? I guess faith in him, Mr Rubin, was
misplaced.