Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

Saw Corker and Goolsbee talking on TV about the financial reg bill the
Dems are trying to ram through.
$50 billion fund, an invitation for fraud.
No break up of the "too big to fail" financial institutions.
First time one of those starts to fail where the economy is badly
affected, guess what?
Taxpayer bailout.
They'll use a lot of bpharic's taxes.
Besides that, the fed prints money for the big boys, and lends it to
them interest free whenever they ask for it.
A few big ones have the money printing presses.
Oligopoly of financial companies.
15 years ago the financial sector was 17% of GDP. Now 63%.
Biggest product? Crooked billionaires and economic woe for the U.S.A.
Corker said he wanted compensation clawback in the bill.
Said nothing in there to keep the crooks from pocketing billions of
dollars in compensation as they do their crook thing.
Pump up the company, pull out their billions over a 2-5 year period,
then let it be liquidated. Everybody gets screwed except the crooks.
Common Wall Street play.
NOTHING in the bill to address that.
Goolsbee acted like he never heard of clawback, and said, "We can talk
about that."
What? The Dems are ramming it through as fast as they can so the folks
don't get wise to how they're kissing Wall Street ass.
Looks like the Republicans should be doing this bill, or better yet, the
Tea Party.

Jim - You wonder why there's a Tea Party? You wonder?

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:46:44 -0500, Jim wrote:

Saw Corker and Goolsbee talking on TV about the financial reg bill the
Dems are trying to ram through.
$50 billion fund, an invitation for fraud.

except the fund would be funded by a wall street tax.

No break up of the "too big to fail" financial institutions.

except derivatives would be traded in the open market, not like they
are now.

First time one of those starts to fail where the economy is badly
affected, guess what?
Taxpayer bailout.
They'll use a lot of bpharic's taxes.

just like they used alot of mine now due to CONSERVATIVE economic
practices

guess you kinda forgot that, didn't you? we have the economy NOW that
has been advocated by alan greenspan, milton friedman and the 'chicago
school' of ultra right wing free market fundies

how'd that work out?

15 years ago the financial sector was 17% of GDP. Now 63%.

yeah. aint conservative capitalism great?

Biggest product? Crooked billionaires and economic woe for the U.S.A.

yeah. aint conservative capitalism great?

What? The Dems are ramming it through as fast as they can so the folks
don't get wise to how they're kissing Wall Street ass.

except, of course, the GOP is already meeting behind closed doors to
stop even THIS weak bill because of

free market capitalism

how's that working out?

Looks like the Republicans should be doing this bill, or better yet, the
Tea Party.

Jim - You wonder why there's a Tea Party? You wonder?

the teabaggers ARE republicans...they just want FEWER regulations on
wall street.

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Saw Corker and Goolsbee talking on TV about the financial reg bill the
Dems are trying to ram through.
$50 billion fund, an invitation for fraud.

BS. Right wing BS.

No break up of the "too big to fail" financial institutions.

Needs to happen, I agree.

First time one of those starts to fail where the economy is badly
affected, guess what?
Taxpayer bailout.

Nope. More BS.

They'll use a lot of bpharic's taxes.
Besides that, the fed prints money for the big boys, and lends it to
them interest free whenever they ask for it.
A few big ones have the money printing presses.
Oligopoly of financial companies.
15 years ago the financial sector was 17% of GDP. Now 63%.

Correct. Needs reform/regulation followed by splitting up of the big ones.

Biggest product? Crooked billionaires and economic woe for the U.S.A.
Corker said he wanted compensation clawback in the bill.

Sounds fine to me.

Said nothing in there to keep the crooks from pocketing billions of
dollars in compensation as they do their crook thing.
Pump up the company, pull out their billions over a 2-5 year period,
then let it be liquidated. Everybody gets screwed except the crooks.

Sounds like BS. I bet there's more to it than this.

Common Wall Street play.
NOTHING in the bill to address that.
Goolsbee acted like he never heard of clawback, and said, "We can talk
about that."

What a shocker.... someone who's willing to talk.

What? The Dems are ramming it through as fast as they can so the folks
don't get wise to how they're kissing Wall Street ass.

More BS. It's been worked on for over a year. Just because _you_ haven't
been paying attention and Fox Noise never mentioned it doesn't mean it's
being "rammed" through.

Looks like the Republicans should be doing this bill, or better yet, the
Tea Party.

Looks like you shouldn't be allowed out without a parent or guardian.

Jim - You wonder why there's a Tea Party? You wonder?


--
Nom=de=Plume

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

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




Hell, they can't even tell us where GM money all went. Bond holders
didn't see it.

obsesses about GM...25 billion

ignores goldman sachs...185 billion

of course, GM had unions...which he hates

and GS has rich bankers...which he loves

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

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

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

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

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.

--
Socialism and statism are great as long as someone else pays for it.

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

On 25/04/2010 8:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:33:58 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:31:15 -0400, 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.

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


I bet federal; expenditures 1/1992 - 1/ 2001 were higher than
1/1981-1/1989.

Pretty safe bet. But would also bet if you ploted government tax
increases they are far above government stated inflation as is
governemtn spending. That is, CPI is a cooked number below real inflation.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Plugged my home value in knowing what it was worth in 1980. If I listed
it for the 2010 stated value in the calcualtor, I would have people
knifing each other in the back to get the deal like that.

--
Socialism and statism are great as long as someone else pays for it.

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:46:44 -0500, Jim wrote:


15 years ago the financial sector was 17% of GDP. Now 63%.

Something isn't accurate with the above.

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

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

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

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.

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.

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:55:11 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


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


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.

which, of course, is nonsense

CDO's were 1 trillion in 96

62 trillion in 2006.

tell me again how the middle class is responsible for that.

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

On 4/29/2010 1:31 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:55:11 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


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


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.

which, of course, is nonsense

CDO's were 1 trillion in 96

62 trillion in 2006.

tell me again how the middle class is responsible for that.


They bought houses that they could not afford to pay for. Those CDO's
are a disaster, but they were based on home loans. Bad home loans. If
the homeowners would have been able to pay the loans, the CDO's would be
covered from defaulting. someone got the 62 trillion in created money.
Who should be your question. Is the way the economy works.

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:10:49 -0700, Califbill
wrote:

On 4/29/2010 1:31 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:55:11 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:



which, of course, is nonsense

CDO's were 1 trillion in 96

62 trillion in 2006.

tell me again how the middle class is responsible for that.


They bought houses that they could not afford to pay for.

and, given the fact that home ownership has run at about 65% for 40
years, the difference in the number of people who defaulted in2007 vs
1997 should have had a MINOR effect on our economy EXCEPT FOR:

hose CDO's
are a disaster,

this. the CDO's leveraged a MINOR problem into a MAJOR one. wall
street took a minor economic bump and found a way to amplify it so it
crashed the economy. we simply can not survive with 62 trillion
dollars worth of a useless financial instrument.

but wall street didn't care. they made billions. and they took it from
us. they took it from hard working, honest people.


but they were based on home loans. Bad home loans. If
the homeowners would have been able to pay the loans, the CDO's would be
covered from defaulting.

nope. the scale was too big. there is no way we can recover from the
trillions that wall street gambled on failure

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

On Sat, 01 May 2010 23:28:52 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:26:12 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

They bought houses that they could not afford to pay for.

and, given the fact that home ownership has run at about 65% for 40
years, the difference in the number of people who defaulted in2007 vs
1997 should have had a MINOR effect on our economy EXCEPT FOR:

You are talking about "need" houses and ignoring the huge number of
"want" houses that were sold. There were a significant part of that
65% who owned 2 or 3 houses, hoping they could flip them for big
bucks. The tax code actually encouraged buying 2.

which is alot of words about nothing. again, the problem isn't the
middle class.

it's people like fab tourre inventing financial instruments that draw
money out of the economy by the TRILLIONS but do nothin productive.