| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
Probably not, unless the states follow suit.
SAN FRANCISCO — Federal prosecutors will no longer seek long, "mandatory minimum" sentences for many low-level, nonviolent drug offenders, under a major shift in policy aimed at turning around decades of explosive growth in the federal prison population, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. planned to announce Monday. "Too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no good law enforcement reason," Holder planned to tell the American Bar Assn. meeting here, according to an advance text of his remarks. "While the aggressive enforcement of federal criminal statutes remains necessary, we cannot simply prosecute or incarcerate our way to becoming a safer nation." Under the new policy, prosecutors would send fewer drug offenders to federal prison for long terms and send more of them to drug treatment and community service. A Justice Department spokesman said officials had no estimate of how many future prosecutions would be affected. http://tinyurl.com/lv6fffy - - - Private prisons at the state and local level...a boom business for corporate America, with the business execs pushing for more and more "crimes" to be added to the books and longer sentences, too, so they can keep those cells overfilled, all operated with very little public oversight. Part of how America lost its way. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On 8/12/2013 6:27 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Probably not, unless the states follow suit. SAN FRANCISCO — Federal prosecutors will no longer seek long, "mandatory minimum" sentences for many low-level, nonviolent drug offenders, under a major shift in policy aimed at turning around decades of explosive growth in the federal prison population, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. planned to announce Monday. "Too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no good law enforcement reason," Holder planned to tell the American Bar Assn. meeting here, according to an advance text of his remarks. "While the aggressive enforcement of federal criminal statutes remains necessary, we cannot simply prosecute or incarcerate our way to becoming a safer nation." Under the new policy, prosecutors would send fewer drug offenders to federal prison for long terms and send more of them to drug treatment and community service. A Justice Department spokesman said officials had no estimate of how many future prosecutions would be affected. http://tinyurl.com/lv6fffy - - - Private prisons at the state and local level...a boom business for corporate America, with the business execs pushing for more and more "crimes" to be added to the books and longer sentences, too, so they can keep those cells overfilled, all operated with very little public oversight. Part of how America lost its way. So the cartels have successfully lobbied Washington to lay off their clientele. And, obviously, you approve. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On 8/12/13 4:03 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 8/12/13 3:45 PM, wrote: On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:21:17 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 8/12/13 12:14 PM, wrote: On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:59:24 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 8/12/13 11:56 AM, wrote: Government owned prisons don't really have that good a record either. Yeah, I know that, but they typically are better than private hell-holes, and they are answerable to the taxpayers and their officials. That's many steps up the ladder from being answerable to shareholders. At a certain point the crime victims think prison should be uncomfortable even miserable. A prisoner should have a worse life than the person on the lowest rung on the economic ladder outside. Otherwise why fear prison? Think about a victim of Bernie Madoff who knows they are buying Bernie room, board and health care when they may not to be able to afford it for themselves. Then you have the Cleveland 3. I bet they have some ideas about how Castro should spend the rest of his miserable life. I bet getting fat watching TV ain't it. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Of course, that didn't prevent a backwards state like Florida from executing an obviously deranged prisoner -John Ferguson- last week. Oh...the United States has about 5% of the world's population and about 25% of the world's incarcerated population. It's good we're still the leader in something, eh? |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On 8/12/13 4:25 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:03:43 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 8/12/13 3:45 PM, wrote: Think about a victim of Bernie Madoff who knows they are buying Bernie room, board and health care when they may not to be able to afford it for themselves. Then you have the Cleveland 3. I bet they have some ideas about how Castro should spend the rest of his miserable life. I bet getting fat watching TV ain't it. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Of course, that didn't prevent a backwards state like Florida from executing an obviously deranged prisoner -John Ferguson- last week. What is cruel or unusual about executing someone? Why is him being "deranged" a factor? It sounds like the perfect candidate. Whoosh. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
|
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On 8/12/13 5:29 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:36:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 8/12/13 4:33 PM, wrote: On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:06:42 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Oh...the United States has about 5% of the world's population and about 25% of the world's incarcerated population. It's good we're still the leader in something, eh? We have more crime although I agree the stupid drug laws contribute to that number in a great way, particularly in the federal system. You like to talk about various" X/industrial complexes" but the DEA/industrial complex is one of the worst. They are fueled with massive budgets plus all the personal property they can take in forfeitures and seizures. Most of the privacy concerns we have with NSA are trivial compared to what the DEA does to "targets", guilty or not. We have more crimes, and therefore we have more crime, I think, would be a more apt way of putting it. I suppose the question would be, if you let all of the people convicted of drug crimes out today, how big would the prison population be? Which other crimes would you pardon people for? We can start a list. There have to be people in prison who we would be better off putting somewhere else. It's not just a matter of pardoning people, although sentence reduction for the non-violent would work, too; it's also a matter of not continuously adding to the enormous list of crimes in this country, a far greater list than other countries have, and many of them are pretty esoteric. Virtually all the banksters who caused the economic recession of the Bush Administration were not prosecuted or imprisoned for anything. When, let's say, 10,000 banksters are tried, convicted, and imprisoned for ruining this country's economy, we'll have room for them in the privately owned prison of their choice. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On 8/12/13 5:30 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:26:45 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 8/12/13 4:25 PM, wrote: On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:03:43 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Of course, that didn't prevent a backwards state like Florida from executing an obviously deranged prisoner -John Ferguson- last week. What is cruel or unusual about executing someone? Why is him being "deranged" a factor? It sounds like the perfect candidate. Whoosh. Exactly, flush that scum out of the gene pool. In civilized countries, capital punishment is a thing of the past. In the backwards states of the United States, it exists to give conservatrash a woody. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... Virtually all the banksters who caused the economic recession of the Bush Administration were not prosecuted or imprisoned for anything. ------------------------------ The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be more accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On 8/12/13 6:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... Virtually all the banksters who caused the economic recession of the Bush Administration were not prosecuted or imprisoned for anything. ------------------------------ The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be more accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession. Oh? Was Frank the one knowingly lending hundreds of billions of dollars against worthless financial instruments, or engaging in predatory lending? Was Frank responsible for the irresponsible and greedy banksters putting themselves ahead of their responsibilities to their shareholders, who, sadly, are too numerous and scattered to exert much control. There's no legal sting for the banksters. They'll do what they did before, finding new loopholes to line their personal pockets. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On 8/12/13 6:44 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 8/12/13 6:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... Virtually all the banksters who caused the economic recession of the Bush Administration were not prosecuted or imprisoned for anything. ------------------------------ The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be more accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession. Oh? Was Frank the one knowingly lending hundreds of billions of dollars against worthless financial instruments, or engaging in predatory lending? Was Frank responsible for the irresponsible and greedy banksters putting themselves ahead of their responsibilities to their shareholders, who, sadly, are too numerous and scattered to exert much control. There's no legal sting for the banksters. They'll do what they did before, finding new loopholes to line their personal pockets. ======================== Frank and Co. were instrumental in getting legislation passed that forced lenders to make sub prime loans or face financial penalties. Financial institutions did what they felt they needed to do to protect themselves. Yes, it's about money, but that's the business they are in. Please, please...don't throw me in that briar patch! The financial penalties typically assessed against banksters are a pittance. Real penalties would be shutting down the banks and brokerages and indicting trying the top execs and their enablers in criminal court. Our prisons are full of non-violent petty criminals where they should be full of banksters, the major league thieves. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On 8/12/13 8:43 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 17:48:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 8/12/13 5:30 PM, wrote: On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:26:45 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 8/12/13 4:25 PM, wrote: On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:03:43 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: What is cruel or unusual about executing someone? Why is him being "deranged" a factor? It sounds like the perfect candidate. Whoosh. Exactly, flush that scum out of the gene pool. In civilized countries, capital punishment is a thing of the past. In the backwards states of the United States, it exists to give conservatrash a woody. Those countries don't have nearly the number of crimes that would draw a death penalty or the alternative, life without parole. At a certain point we are going to have to face the reality of thousands of geriatric prisoners demanding nursing home care, in custody. That $40,000 we have been paying to keep them alive will skyrocket into 6 figures (at a time when we may not even be able to give that care to productive people) These are not the people who have worked and produced economic value for the country. They are usually life time criminals who have been an economic drag on us since the day they were born. I don't have a problem killing them. We can use a drone if that eases your conscience. It seems to OK to kill anyone with a drone if we think they constitute a threat... The only problem I have is being sure you really have the right guy. If it is someone like the Aurora shooter or The Fort Hood guy, we know they did it ... spark them up. As I stated, we are pretty much the only modern western nation that still has the death penalty, and, of course, we have more crimes on the books than other countries, and the largest percentage of population in prison. You're a pretty bloodthirsty guy. Sorry to see that. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
|
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
|
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On 8/13/2013 6:19 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 8/13/13 2:01 AM, wrote: On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 20:55:09 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: As I stated, we are pretty much the only modern western nation that still has the death penalty, and, of course, we have more crimes on the books than other countries, and the largest percentage of population in prison. You're a pretty bloodthirsty guy. Sorry to see that. So are our criminals. If you threw out every nonviolent theft, drug and financial crime we would still have more murderers, kidnappers and rapist in jail than those other countries. Are you really defending James Holmes, Ariel Castro and Maj Nidal Hasan? Give me one good reason why we should spend millions of dollars keeping them alive. Do you think any of them might be innocent? I find it interesting that the same guy who won't let us kill slimeballs like that will still support a drone strike that kills everyone in the building, guilty or innocent. I'm not defending the violent criminals who are or should be locked up. I'm simply consistent in my opposition to the death penalty. You were accused of supporting drone strikes. Does you or doesn't you? |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
In article
, says... "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... Virtually all the banksters who caused the economic recession of the Bush Administration were not prosecuted or imprisoned for anything. ------------------------------ The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be more accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession. Wow. Talk about partisan politics. I'll remind you that the massive abuse of mortgage lending "due diligence" requirements occurred when there was a Republican President, Republican Senate, and Republican House of Representatives. Here's Barney Franks' pal in this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63odt264pR8 Pretty cool when he says "Put your mind to it that first- time home buyers or low-income home buyers can have just as nice a house as anybody else." What a prince of a man. Funny, this guy says it's primarily the "bankster's" fault. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime- blame.asp I look at it a bit differently. The "banksters" will steal everything they can. That's evident. If breaking the law and paying a fine when caught leads to more profit than NOT breaking the law - they will break the law. It's the American Way. Only prison time will prevent that. It's always been the "bankster's" responsibility to make only sound loans. That's his fiduciary duty. He failed. Miserably. But fiduciary duty to others means nothing if you can violate it and escape prison of other big hurt. Banksters also have a fiduciary duty to enrich themselves as much as possible, while avoiding prison. It's the American Way. Since it's a well-founded principle that banksters will steal other people's money if not sent to prison for doing it, one other thing is obvious. The lawmakers and banking/mortgage regulators failed. Every single one of them that didn't write a bill to prevent it from happening, or in the case of regulators, allow it to happen without raising holy hell. They should have all been tossed out when the **** hit the fan. But nearly all of the lawmakers and regulators are millionaires, so they followed the fiduciary duty to themselves. It's the American Way. Millionaires write the laws. They run the country. What party label they attach to themselves means nothing if their primary goal is to attain more wealth. Follow the money. It sure as hell didn't go to the middle class or poor people. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
"Boating All Out" wrote in message ... In article , says... "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... Virtually all the banksters who caused the economic recession of the Bush Administration were not prosecuted or imprisoned for anything. ------------------------------ The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be more accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession. Wow. Talk about partisan politics. I'll remind you that the massive abuse of mortgage lending "due diligence" requirements occurred when there was a Republican President, Republican Senate, and Republican House of Representatives. Here's Barney Franks' pal in this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63odt264pR8 Pretty cool when he says "Put your mind to it that first- time home buyers or low-income home buyers can have just as nice a house as anybody else." What a prince of a man. Funny, this guy says it's primarily the "bankster's" fault. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime- blame.asp I look at it a bit differently. The "banksters" will steal everything they can. That's evident. If breaking the law and paying a fine when caught leads to more profit than NOT breaking the law - they will break the law. It's the American Way. Only prison time will prevent that. It's always been the "bankster's" responsibility to make only sound loans. That's his fiduciary duty. He failed. Miserably. But fiduciary duty to others means nothing if you can violate it and escape prison of other big hurt. Banksters also have a fiduciary duty to enrich themselves as much as possible, while avoiding prison. It's the American Way. Since it's a well-founded principle that banksters will steal other people's money if not sent to prison for doing it, one other thing is obvious. The lawmakers and banking/mortgage regulators failed. Every single one of them that didn't write a bill to prevent it from happening, or in the case of regulators, allow it to happen without raising holy hell. They should have all been tossed out when the **** hit the fan. But nearly all of the lawmakers and regulators are millionaires, so they followed the fiduciary duty to themselves. It's the American Way. Millionaires write the laws. They run the country. What party label they attach to themselves means nothing if their primary goal is to attain more wealth. Follow the money. It sure as hell didn't go to the middle class or poor people. -------------------------- My complaint about Barney Frank is based on him being the prime advocate to establish quotas for mortgages obtained through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Before 1992 the Fair Housing Act only required them to approve loans that institutional mortgage lenders would make, i.e. qualified applicants who met the down payment, work history and income levels to qualify for the amount of the loan. The 1992 amendment successfully lobbied for by Frank established a quota system whereby 30 percent of the loans *must* be made to those who were at or below the medium income level in the community. This quota was raised to 50 percent at the end of Clinton's administration and raised again to 55 percent during the Bush administration in 2007. The result was the creation of so called "sub-prime" loans and the eventual collapse of the housing market and home values. This is what caused the recession. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
"Boating All Out" wrote in message ... In article , says... "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... Virtually all the banksters who caused the economic recession of the Bush Administration were not prosecuted or imprisoned for anything. ------------------------------ The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be more accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession. Wow. Talk about partisan politics. I'll remind you that the massive abuse of mortgage lending "due diligence" requirements occurred when there was a Republican President, Republican Senate, and Republican House of Representatives. Here's Barney Franks' pal in this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63odt264pR8 Pretty cool when he says "Put your mind to it that first- time home buyers or low-income home buyers can have just as nice a house as anybody else." What a prince of a man. Funny, this guy says it's primarily the "bankster's" fault. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime- blame.asp I look at it a bit differently. The "banksters" will steal everything they can. That's evident. If breaking the law and paying a fine when caught leads to more profit than NOT breaking the law - they will break the law. It's the American Way. Only prison time will prevent that. It's always been the "bankster's" responsibility to make only sound loans. That's his fiduciary duty. He failed. Miserably. But fiduciary duty to others means nothing if you can violate it and escape prison of other big hurt. Banksters also have a fiduciary duty to enrich themselves as much as possible, while avoiding prison. It's the American Way. Since it's a well-founded principle that banksters will steal other people's money if not sent to prison for doing it, one other thing is obvious. The lawmakers and banking/mortgage regulators failed. Every single one of them that didn't write a bill to prevent it from happening, or in the case of regulators, allow it to happen without raising holy hell. They should have all been tossed out when the **** hit the fan. But nearly all of the lawmakers and regulators are millionaires, so they followed the fiduciary duty to themselves. It's the American Way. Millionaires write the laws. They run the country. What party label they attach to themselves means nothing if their primary goal is to attain more wealth. Follow the money. It sure as hell didn't go to the middle class or poor people. ---------------------------- BTW, I am sure you are aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac don't make mortgage loans directly. They buy the mortgages given by institutional lenders and then sell them as securities in the bond market, which is supposed to provide the funding for lenders to make more mortgages. By establishing the quota systems in the 90's so many bad loans were made that the value of the securities crashed. Result? Recession. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
In article fq2dnb7y8r3ErZfPnZ2dnUVZ_q-
, says... My complaint about Barney Frank is based on him being the prime advocate to establish quotas for mortgages obtained through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Before 1992 the Fair Housing Act only required them to approve loans that institutional mortgage lenders would make, i.e. qualified applicants who met the down payment, work history and income levels to qualify for the amount of the loan. The 1992 amendment successfully lobbied for by Frank established a quota system whereby 30 percent of the loans *must* be made to those who were at or below the medium income level in the community. This quota was raised to 50 percent at the end of Clinton's administration and raised again to 55 percent during the Bush administration in 2007. The result was the creation of so called "sub-prime" loans and the eventual collapse of the housing market and home values. This is what caused the recession. Right, ignore all other evidence to the contrary, which is readily available, and just blame Barney Frank. Give everybody else, other lawmakers, mortgage brokers, banksters, Wall Street, home-flippers, 2nd mortgage takers to buy that F-250, etc, a free pass. It's all Barney Franks' fault. He was secretly mind- controlling the entire U.S. Government, and those I mention above starting from - what, 1992? He must be the anti-Christ. Like I said, "Wow. Talk about partisan politics." Whatever floats your boat, Mr "Independent." |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
"Boating All Out" wrote in message ... In article fq2dnb7y8r3ErZfPnZ2dnUVZ_q- , says... My complaint about Barney Frank is based on him being the prime advocate to establish quotas for mortgages obtained through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Before 1992 the Fair Housing Act only required them to approve loans that institutional mortgage lenders would make, i.e. qualified applicants who met the down payment, work history and income levels to qualify for the amount of the loan. The 1992 amendment successfully lobbied for by Frank established a quota system whereby 30 percent of the loans *must* be made to those who were at or below the medium income level in the community. This quota was raised to 50 percent at the end of Clinton's administration and raised again to 55 percent during the Bush administration in 2007. The result was the creation of so called "sub-prime" loans and the eventual collapse of the housing market and home values. This is what caused the recession. Right, ignore all other evidence to the contrary, which is readily available, and just blame Barney Frank. Give everybody else, other lawmakers, mortgage brokers, banksters, Wall Street, home-flippers, 2nd mortgage takers to buy that F-250, etc, a free pass. It's all Barney Franks' fault. He was secretly mind- controlling the entire U.S. Government, and those I mention above starting from - what, 1992? He must be the anti-Christ. Like I said, "Wow. Talk about partisan politics." Whatever floats your boat, Mr "Independent." ---------------------------------- There's no question that many in the groups you cite tried to take advantage of lessened requirements for loans and those giving them took advantage of the ability to do so. However, the efforts of Barney Frank (and others) directly led to this era of fiscal irresponsibility. Even in 2004, when the evidence was mounting that a crisis was imminent, Frank was still advocating the quotas, saying "let's roll the dice a little longer" or something to that effect. He also claimed that Fannie and Freddy were in "fine shape". Remember ... he was Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and had a lot of political clout. It was after the **** hit the fan that he started backtracking on all his previous statements and positions, disavowing any responsibility. That's what disgusts me about him. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 8/12/13 8:43 PM, wrote: On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 17:48:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 8/12/13 5:30 PM, wrote: On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:26:45 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 8/12/13 4:25 PM, wrote: On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:03:43 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: What is cruel or unusual about executing someone? Why is him being "deranged" a factor? It sounds like the perfect candidate. Whoosh. Exactly, flush that scum out of the gene pool. In civilized countries, capital punishment is a thing of the past. In the backwards states of the United States, it exists to give conservatrash a woody. Those countries don't have nearly the number of crimes that would draw a death penalty or the alternative, life without parole. At a certain point we are going to have to face the reality of thousands of geriatric prisoners demanding nursing home care, in custody. That $40,000 we have been paying to keep them alive will skyrocket into 6 figures (at a time when we may not even be able to give that care to productive people) These are not the people who have worked and produced economic value for the country. They are usually life time criminals who have been an economic drag on us since the day they were born. I don't have a problem killing them. We can use a drone if that eases your conscience. It seems to OK to kill anyone with a drone if we think they constitute a threat... The only problem I have is being sure you really have the right guy. If it is someone like the Aurora shooter or The Fort Hood guy, we know they did it ... spark them up. As I stated, we are pretty much the only modern western nation that still has the death penalty, and, of course, we have more crimes on the books than other countries, and the largest percentage of population in prison. You're a pretty bloodthirsty guy. Sorry to see that. Other countries may not need the death penalty. Their long term prisoners kill themselves. Japan has their prisoners in the cell 23 hours a day, and no talking to other prisoners. Most European countries probably do not have TV, Internet, and social programs for their inmates. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On 8/12/2013 3:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be more accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession. You keep making that assertion. I'd like to see you document and quantify it. I think your proportion is off by an order of magnitude or so. Show good accounting and I'll accept it. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
|
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On Monday, August 12, 2013 6:27:05 AM UTC-4, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Flagged for the **** that it is |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On 8/12/2013 5:51 PM, wrote:
Frank/Dodd did loosen up lending requirements. Clinton encouraged and signed BOTH pieces of legislation that "unchained" Wall Street. He was too centrist in that regard. Nobody was complaining when the bubble was inflating and their house tripled in value. Unemployment in the construction industry was 0.5% Nobody complained about that either. It was sort of like the Dot Com bubble a half decade before. Nobody complained about that either ... until the crash. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooksley_Born |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On 8/19/2013 11:56 PM, thumper wrote:
On 8/12/2013 3:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be more accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession. You keep making that assertion. I'd like to see you document and quantify it. I think your proportion is off by an order of magnitude or so. Show good accounting and I'll accept it. Mr Luddite doesn't work for peanuts. I doubt you have the resources to pay him to enlighten you. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
"Hank©" wrote in message eb.com... On 8/19/2013 11:56 PM, thumper wrote: On 8/12/2013 3:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be more accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession. You keep making that assertion. I'd like to see you document and quantify it. I think your proportion is off by an order of magnitude or so. Show good accounting and I'll accept it. Mr Luddite doesn't work for peanuts. I doubt you have the resources to pay him to enlighten you. ----------------------------- To the contrary, Mr. Luddite indeed now works for peanuts. Mrs. E. bought him a six pack of Sam Adams for a week's work clearing trees, branches and briars and using his tractor to create horse riding trails in the woods beside his house. Now she has him spreading and packing about 30 yards of stone dust on the trails so the goofy horses won't trip. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On 8/20/13 8:44 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"Hank©" wrote in message eb.com... On 8/19/2013 11:56 PM, thumper wrote: On 8/12/2013 3:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be more accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession. You keep making that assertion. I'd like to see you document and quantify it. I think your proportion is off by an order of magnitude or so. Show good accounting and I'll accept it. Mr Luddite doesn't work for peanuts. I doubt you have the resources to pay him to enlighten you. ----------------------------- To the contrary, Mr. Luddite indeed now works for peanuts. Mrs. E. bought him a six pack of Sam Adams for a week's work clearing trees, branches and briars and using his tractor to create horse riding trails in the woods beside his house. Now she has him spreading and packing about 30 yards of stone dust on the trails so the goofy horses won't trip. Not that I would ever want to own a horse or two, but I've wondered from time to time how much work on a daily basis it is to "keep" horses properly. It just seems to me that the "upkeep" is continuous and never-ending. And if you go on vacation, do you have to hire a service to come by and take care of them? |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On 8/20/13 8:44 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"Hank©" wrote in message eb.com... On 8/19/2013 11:56 PM, thumper wrote: On 8/12/2013 3:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be more accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession. You keep making that assertion. I'd like to see you document and quantify it. I think your proportion is off by an order of magnitude or so. Show good accounting and I'll accept it. Mr Luddite doesn't work for peanuts. I doubt you have the resources to pay him to enlighten you. ----------------------------- To the contrary, Mr. Luddite indeed now works for peanuts. Mrs. E. bought him a six pack of Sam Adams for a week's work clearing trees, branches and briars and using his tractor to create horse riding trails in the woods beside his house. Now she has him spreading and packing about 30 yards of stone dust on the trails so the goofy horses won't trip. I think I've finally finished buying, toting and spreading bags of mulch for m'lady. 244 bags this season. I bought it in bulk one year off a garden supply place that dumped it on my driveway. That was worse than carrying the bags around the yard in a wheelbarrow. Bagged cedar mulch lasts longer around here than the slightly cheaper pine mulch. It's really an exercise in exercise. First, drive to Home Despot. Pull a flatbed cart to the stacks of mulch, which sometimes are stacked 12' high. Pull the bags down and stack them on the cart, 20 is the limit. Pay for them, pull the cart outside and stack the bags in the back of the SUV. Drive home. Unload the car, stacking the bags on the driveway. Then, when an area is "ready" for the mulch, stack two bags on the "hood" of the garden tractor, drive them where they are going to be placed, slit the bags open, dump the mulch and spread it around. Even more fun when the bags of mulch are wet. But it is good exercise. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 8/20/13 8:44 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Now she has him spreading and packing about 30 yards of stone dust on the trails so the goofy horses won't trip. Not that I would ever want to own a horse or two, but I've wondered from time to time how much work on a daily basis it is to "keep" horses properly. It just seems to me that the "upkeep" is continuous and never-ending. And if you go on vacation, do you have to hire a service to come by and take care of them? ------------------------- I really don't know how much it costs. It's a big secret around here. :-) Judging by the number of bales of hay in the barn loft (and how often they are replenished) plus the number of bags of oats and wood shavings she has stored, I'll bet it's not cheap. Then there's the routine visits by the horse vet, the horse dentist and the farrier. Of course you also have to consider all the saddles, bridles and other accessories that I don't really have a clue as to what they are. A horse can't have just one bridle or saddle. It has to have several, depending on what type of riding you do, I guess. She has one saddle that she finally has decided to sell. It's a custom, show saddle that's worth about $5K. I told her it would look cool installed on a custom Harley-Davidson. When she first got them, Mrs.E. used to be active in horse shows and one of her horses is a National Champion in something. But, as the years have gone by they have become big, 1200 lb. pets. She's an animal lover and the horses are dear to her heart. It's ok. She deserves them after all the years of putting up with me and our adventurous lives together. Only problem is that they are about halfway through a normal horse life which means they'll probably outlive me. There's a young kid (also into horses) who has lined up a number of clients and travels around daily to muck stalls, etc. Mrs.E. is one of his clients. Plus, she has a number of friends, including the people that bought the old farmhouse from us (located at the end of our driveway) who are horse people. They all help each other out and take care of the horses when anyone is travelling away from home. Then there's the town government. They send someone out to your barn for an inspection every so often in order to renew your permit to have horses. We never have a problem with that because Mrs.E. keeps the barn, stalls and tack room in pristine condition. Unlike many other places, our town does not permit spreading of the collected horse manure, so we have a big, permanent dumpster that is emptied weekly. In the past 12 years I rode one of them once for about 50 feet. Did nothing for me. The only things I'll ride must have an ignition on/off switch or pedals. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On 8/20/13 9:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 8/20/13 8:44 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Now she has him spreading and packing about 30 yards of stone dust on the trails so the goofy horses won't trip. Not that I would ever want to own a horse or two, but I've wondered from time to time how much work on a daily basis it is to "keep" horses properly. It just seems to me that the "upkeep" is continuous and never-ending. And if you go on vacation, do you have to hire a service to come by and take care of them? ------------------------- I really don't know how much it costs. It's a big secret around here. :-) Judging by the number of bales of hay in the barn loft (and how often they are replenished) plus the number of bags of oats and wood shavings she has stored, I'll bet it's not cheap. Then there's the routine visits by the horse vet, the horse dentist and the farrier. Of course you also have to consider all the saddles, bridles and other accessories that I don't really have a clue as to what they are. A horse can't have just one bridle or saddle. It has to have several, depending on what type of riding you do, I guess. She has one saddle that she finally has decided to sell. It's a custom, show saddle that's worth about $5K. I told her it would look cool installed on a custom Harley-Davidson. When she first got them, Mrs.E. used to be active in horse shows and one of her horses is a National Champion in something. But, as the years have gone by they have become big, 1200 lb. pets. She's an animal lover and the horses are dear to her heart. It's ok. She deserves them after all the years of putting up with me and our adventurous lives together. Only problem is that they are about halfway through a normal horse life which means they'll probably outlive me. There's a young kid (also into horses) who has lined up a number of clients and travels around daily to muck stalls, etc. Mrs.E. is one of his clients. Plus, she has a number of friends, including the people that bought the old farmhouse from us (located at the end of our driveway) who are horse people. They all help each other out and take care of the horses when anyone is travelling away from home. Then there's the town government. They send someone out to your barn for an inspection every so often in order to renew your permit to have horses. We never have a problem with that because Mrs.E. keeps the barn, stalls and tack room in pristine condition. Unlike many other places, our town does not permit spreading of the collected horse manure, so we have a big, permanent dumpster that is emptied weekly. In the past 12 years I rode one of them once for about 50 feet. Did nothing for me. The only things I'll ride must have an ignition on/off switch or pedals. You'll appreciate this. When I was in Kansas, I dated a girl for a short while whose daddy owned a commercial stables and a number of horses. Being a lad from the *countryside* of New Haven, I wasn't much interested in horses and I never ever went horseback riding with her. Instead, I told her, I brought my horse with me...which, at the time, was a 305 cc Honda SuperHawk that I had bought used after selling off my 250 cc Honda "Dream." I really liked that SuperHawk. Looked exactly like this, and was reliable and a delight to ride. http://tinyurl.com/mn57hvv |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
Those Super Hawks sure we're nice in the late sixties.
I had a Honda 160 and it seemed like a toy next to my friend's Super Hawk. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 8/20/13 9:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: In the past 12 years I rode one of them once for about 50 feet. Did nothing for me. The only things I'll ride must have an ignition on/off switch or pedals. You'll appreciate this. When I was in Kansas, I dated a girl for a short while whose daddy owned a commercial stables and a number of horses. Being a lad from the *countryside* of New Haven, I wasn't much interested in horses and I never ever went horseback riding with her. Instead, I told her, I brought my horse with me...which, at the time, was a 305 cc Honda SuperHawk that I had bought used after selling off my 250 cc Honda "Dream." I really liked that SuperHawk. Looked exactly like this, and was reliable and a delight to ride. http://tinyurl.com/mn57hvv -------------------------------- I had one also ... except it was a 1965. Bought it while living in Zion, IL when I was attending the Navy ET schools for 2 years. I rode that thing year round, from our apartment in Zion to the Navy base and back, even in snow storms. Mrs.E. had our car (a 1970 Fiat Sports Coupe) because we had a then young daughter and she needed transportation. Traded the SuperHawk for a Honda 350 when I received orders to Puerto Rico. We rented a house off base and within a month a guy walked up our driveway one day, looking at the Honda 350. He spoke Spanish of course, and I couldn't completely understand him. But then he pulled a wad of bills out of his pocket, peeled off $600 of them and offered them to me while pointing at the bike. I gave him the keys and waved goodbye. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
"True North" wrote in message ... Those Super Hawks sure we're nice in the late sixties. I had a Honda 160 and it seemed like a toy next to my friend's Super Hawk. ------------------------------- Yeah, looking back now the 305 was a neat little bike. Of course I weighed a lot less then, so it didn't feel so small. I regretted trading it for the Honda 350. The Superhawk was a classy, good looking basic motorcycle. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
|
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
|
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
On 8/20/2013 10:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"True North" wrote in message ... Those Super Hawks sure we're nice in the late sixties. I had a Honda 160 and it seemed like a toy next to my friend's Super Hawk. ------------------------------- Yeah, looking back now the 305 was a neat little bike. Of course I weighed a lot less then, so it didn't feel so small. I regretted trading it for the Honda 350. The Superhawk was a classy, good looking basic motorcycle. I had the popped out honda 450.. it was released as a CB500 twin... Honda. It was my first bike. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
|
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 8/20/13 9:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: In the past 12 years I rode one of them once for about 50 feet. Did nothing for me. The only things I'll ride must have an ignition on/off switch or pedals. You'll appreciate this. When I was in Kansas, I dated a girl for a short while whose daddy owned a commercial stables and a number of horses. Being a lad from the *countryside* of New Haven, I wasn't much interested in horses and I never ever went horseback riding with her. ----------------------------------------- When my family lived in Woodbridge, CT, back in the 60s, one of my many part-time jobs was working for a guy that bred, raised and trained thoroughbred race horses. He had a farm located just off the Pulaski Highway somewhere between Woodbridge and Ansonia. I mucked stalls, hauled the hay and fed the horses their late afternoon oats. Race horses are huge and intimidating. I'd have to go out into the pastures or paddocks to harness them and lead them back to the stalls. The guy had several studs that were used for breeding and it was done the old fashioned, natural way ... not through test tubes. People would ship a mare to the facility to be bred with one of the studs. The studs become very aggressive to anyone trying to handle them and that experience led to my lack of interest in horses. |
Gosh...will shares in prison stock take a nosedive?
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:06 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com