Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:31:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:06:25 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

biggest spenders in history?

bush and reagan...

In my lifetime every president has spent more than the guy before him.
I assume that was true forever.

makes sense to me...except for clinton. but i think monica took up
alot of his time, so he wasn't thinking of spending


Unlike most men, he was apparently a multi-tasker. :)

--
Nom=de=Plume

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:47:40 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 25/04/2010 7:31 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:06:25 -0400, wrote:

biggest spenders in history?

bush and reagan...

In my lifetime every president has spent more than the guy before him.
I assume that was true forever.

True. But this one scares me. Only took Obama 16 months to outspend
Bush's 8. Quite the ramp up. Certainly not sustainable. The tax bill
is going to get brutal.

guess canuck, his brain on life support, isn't aware of the economic
situation right now.



I'm continually amazed he can type and chew at the same time. I'm assuming
he's chewing of course.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:25:13 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 25/04/2010 6:10 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:06:25 -0400, wrote:



whoops! meant AIG..goldman sachs defraruded AIG...which helped the
rich bankers at GS make a fortune...passing the bill to middle class
taxpayers

but that's OK in canuck's view. no bankers are union members

You will never see a post from me that condones any kind of bailout or
any company on earth.

and i'm a realist. i realize that NOT bailing out the banks would have
led to another 29 type crash. BUT the difference between me and the
right wing is that i want to restructure the financial system so the
rich don't treat the middle class like a piggy bank. but the right
thinks the rich have done everything right, and it's all the fault of
the middle class

THAT'S the difference.

the right doesnt question the rich. the rich has no solution to keep
this from happening again. the right blames only obama. the right
thinks if we do NOTHING everything will be OK. the right has more
faith in wall street and the rich than a saint has in christ


Then these ubber rich *******s would then fire 1/2 the dead weight board
members that just suck each other off as the case in GM. The real tea
baggers in the old boys network would get the message to get back to
work or get fired.

GM is a peanut whistle in the shrieking noise of the meltdown. 25
billion vs 185 billion to AIG?

UAW, well, they would be just told to go away. You are not taxing
$10/hr people in Montana for a Detroit f---up.

what i see is union jobs in GM...and rich bankers in AIG. yet the
right focuses on GM becaus of the unions rather than AIG because those
folks are rich bankers and insurance guys.

cant help think that it's more anti-middle class sentiment on the part
of the right

The banks failing would not have caused a 1929 crash! Totally different
scenarios. The banks and their stockholders would have seen a loss of
money, and some fool with more than the FDIC insured amount may have seen a
loss, but the rest would just go on as if not much happened. The stronger
banks would have picked up the accounts of the failed banks. And if the
government had to subsidize FDIC would have been at least a trillion less
than they spent propping up the failing banks.

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:33:39 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:25:13 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

cant help think that it's more anti-middle class sentiment on the part
of the right

The banks failing would not have caused a 1929 crash! Totally different
scenarios

you mean just because it did before? what was it santayana said about
those who forget history...

.. The banks and their stockholders would have seen a loss of
money, and some fool with more than the FDIC insured amount may have seen a
loss, but the rest would just go on as if not much happened. The stronger
banks would have picked up the accounts of the failed banks

and which, pray tell, were the 'stronger' banks? the ones that needed
a bailout?

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:33:39 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:25:13 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

cant help think that it's more anti-middle class sentiment on the part
of the right

The banks failing would not have caused a 1929 crash! Totally different
scenarios

you mean just because it did before? what was it santayana said about
those who forget history...

. The banks and their stockholders would have seen a loss of
money, and some fool with more than the FDIC insured amount may have seen
a
loss, but the rest would just go on as if not much happened. The stronger
banks would have picked up the accounts of the failed banks

and which, pray tell, were the 'stronger' banks? the ones that needed
a bailout?




The bailout banks by definition were weak. They were strong banks, still
are.

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:56:54 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:33:39 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


and which, pray tell, were the 'stronger' banks? the ones that needed
a bailout?




The bailout banks by definition were weak. They were strong banks, still
are.

kind of like saying a cancer patient who hasnt died this week is
stronger than one who did?

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:56:54 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:33:39 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


and which, pray tell, were the 'stronger' banks? the ones that needed
a bailout?




The bailout banks by definition were weak. They were strong banks, still
are.

kind of like saying a cancer patient who hasnt died this week is
stronger than one who did?



There were a bunch of good banks. They did not go along with the new math
of real estate loans. They required the old fashioned way. 20% down and no
more than 1/3 of your income. Documented income.

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:03:21 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:56:54 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

kind of like saying a cancer patient who hasnt died this week is
stronger than one who did?



There were a bunch of good banks. They did not go along with the new math
of real estate loans. They required the old fashioned way. 20% down and no
more than 1/3 of your income. Documented income.

actually there weren't a 'bunch of good banks'. there were a bunch of
large banks and investment houses that gamed the system, making it
fail

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:57:23 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:03:21 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


actually there weren't a 'bunch of good banks'. there were a bunch of
large banks and investment houses that gamed the system, making it
fail




No, there was a lot community banks that were hurt by the scamming to big to
fail banks that Mr. Rubin, Clintons Treasury Secretary, helped create. The
same Rubins that took Citibank in to CitiGroup. Should have let CitiGroup
fail. Goldman-Sachs go the the way of Lehman Bros. And the goverment put
BofA in trouble by forcing them to take Lehman and Country Wide.

and what happened to the stock market when lehman bros went under?

it collapsed

remember 1929? they tried your method.

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:57:23 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:03:21 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


actually there weren't a 'bunch of good banks'. there were a bunch of
large banks and investment houses that gamed the system, making it
fail




No, there was a lot community banks that were hurt by the scamming to big
to
fail banks that Mr. Rubin, Clintons Treasury Secretary, helped create.
The
same Rubins that took Citibank in to CitiGroup. Should have let CitiGroup
fail. Goldman-Sachs go the the way of Lehman Bros. And the goverment put
BofA in trouble by forcing them to take Lehman and Country Wide.

and what happened to the stock market when lehman bros went under?

it collapsed

remember 1929? they tried your method.



It did not collapse because Lehman Bros went under. It collapsed when the
first couple people with stated income loans could not pay the mortgage.