|
Our economy...
On the other hand..Im a survivalist and have made plans many many years ago to allow me to weather the crashing of the country, for whatever reason. ah...a survivalist. living in the idaho mountains, drooling on your bib about plots to dilute the white race's gene stock yeah, that explains alot. Gunner's Ass is a survivalist? Hehehe. Well, that explains a lot of the drool dripping down his chin...survival of the least fit. He's in his own personal fantasy world. He thinks he's a successful republican businessman who is living the American dream. The reality, he lives in Taft, Calif., which is outside Bakersfield. It's one ugly place, flat, desert-like, and nobody in their right mind ever wanted to live there. It was a place you drove by when you went up interstate 5 from LA to northern California. All that was there was oil wells and coyotes. He's living a lower working class life, he's never going to get ahead, he has no health insurance, he's already had one heart attack, and as for being a survivalist, I give you odds that he doesn't even live four more years. So despite his best laid plans to survive some Sci-Fi disaster fantasy in reality he'll die in poverty leaving nothing behind but junk and his dream of surviving will be nothing but that, a dream. Knowing what a moron he is makes it a lot easier to completely dismiss his twisted and irrelevant blather. Hawke I can see you have never been to Taft. Nicer than Bakersfield without the gang violence. In the desert foothills. Has a college, and is great if you are into the outdoors. My wife lived there for a few years as a child, as her dad was a Chevron employee. She did not feel deprived. Taft is a **** hole. -- John R. Carroll www.machiningsolution.com Ah ha, there's someone besides myself that knows about Taft. You'll notice that hardly anyone has ever heard of Taft, California. That isn't because it's such an awesome place. I'll put my town up against it any day of the week. I live in Chico, Ca. It's a very nice little town, has a state university here, it's full of trees and has creeks running through it, and most people that come here comment on how pretty it is. I've lived all over and this is one nice place. I've also passed by Taft many times when actually going someplace. Taft has never been a destination for anyone. Gunner has done a masterful job of making lemonade out of lemons by making his life sound like one we all are striving for. I guarantee that most of you would never want to trade places with Gunner, and that about says it all. But one thing for sure is that it is nothing like what you think of as the American dream. And as usual Gunner's fantasy about me being a weak out of shape slob living with Mom is utter rubbish. The truth is just about every thing Gunner made up about me is completely wrong. But then when you don't know the facts you make them up, at least that is what you do if you're a right winger. He would love it if I was a puny, timid, intellectual, wimp. You better believe it that nobody that has ever met me got that impression. Hawke |
Our economy...
: not feel deprived. Taft is a **** hole. It may not be Malibu, but is not a ********. It isn't even Arvin. Taft, like Bakersfield, is hell on earth on a still day. There are enough airborne volatiles that you can hardly breath. Well, normal humans find it hard to tolerate. I don't think the locals even notice. They do contract nasty diseases in numbers that look a lot like Love canal, however. -- John R. Carroll www.machiningsolution.com The more you write the more I know you are familiar with the area. I used to live in Orange county, California so I've been over the hill and up I-5 many times over the years. As you accurately noted the area immediately after you leave the mountains and hit the valley floor is one unattractive area. It's dry, smoggy, hot, lacks green vegetation, and as you might expect it's never been a place many people wanted to spend time in. Despite what Gunner says it's not a nice place. On the other hand, there are people who think Blythe is nice. Hawke |
Our economy...
"Gunner" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:13:23 -0700, Gunner wrote: On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:34:55 -0400, john wrote: Gasoline is selling for three times what it was when Bush presumed office. Gasoline is going down, does he get credit for that too? Gummer apparently hasn't bought any gasoline in the past week or so. Odd...Last week it was $3.71, at the end of the week, it was $3.65, this morning I filled up at $3.59 Doesnt seem like much of a rise, least not on this planet I filled up this morning...$3.55 Odd....I thought gas was skyrocketing? Gunner And I thought we had to drill, drill, drill, and drill offshore too for prices to come down. I guess not. That must have been another republican lie. Hawke |
Our economy...
"Hawke" wrote in message ... "Roy Blankenship" wrote in message m... "Hawke" wrote in message ... "A Boater" wrote in message . .. wf3h wrote: On Sep 16, 5:18 am, Gunner Asch wrote: On the other hand..Im a survivalist and have made plans many many years ago to allow me to weather the crashing of the country, for whatever reason. ah...a survivalist. living in the idaho mountains, drooling on your bib about plots to dilute the white race's gene stock yeah, that explains alot. Gunner's Ass is a survivalist? Hehehe. Well, that explains a lot of the drool dripping down his chin...survival of the least fit. He's in his own personal fantasy world. He thinks he's a successful republican businessman who is living the American dream. The reality, he lives in Taft, Calif., which is outside Bakersfield. It's one ugly place, flat, desert-like, and nobody in their right mind ever wanted to live there. It was a place you drove by when you went up interstate 5 from LA to northern California. All that was there was oil wells and coyotes. He's living a lower working class life, he's never going to get ahead, he has no health insurance, he's already had one heart attack, and as for being a survivalist, I give you odds that he doesn't even live four more years. So despite his best laid plans to survive some Sci-Fi disaster fantasy in reality he'll die in poverty leaving nothing behind but junk and his dream of surviving will be nothing but that, a dream. Knowing what a moron he is makes it a lot easier to completely dismiss his twisted and irrelevant blather. Hawke Wow. I almost feel sorry for the guy. Broken dreams. I would too except that in addition to all that he's a prick. Hawke We have a "Gunner" type in our shop. His father was a boxer. I can only guess how discipline was administered. The guy is very territorial, I am guessing he had things taken from him as a child, he is very protective of his space to the extent that he inconveniences others. He parks one of the trucks right in the driveway "to keep from being blocked in", but all it does is cause our clients to be inconvenienced. Today, he brought in 3 quarts of oil for our diesel truck and laid them in front of the computer printer so nothing can feed out of the printer. A homeless guy was in our dumpster one day looking for cans, our "Gunner" was going to tell him to get off our property, but I caught up with him while I was taking our shop can of recyclables out to give the homeless guy, and said, "Man, if you are so low you have to be in the dumpster, you are welcome to it." The last straw was when I was talking about the rednecks in Florida (where I have lived 4 times) and he said, "Oh, really? I thought Florida was full of left-wing extremists." A product of right-wing talk radio. |
I'm voting republican because...
|
Our economy...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:36:53 -0700, Hawke wrote:
On the other hand..Im a survivalist and have made plans many many years ago to allow me to weather the crashing of the country, for whatever reason. ah...a survivalist. living in the idaho mountains, drooling on your bib about plots to dilute the white race's gene stock yeah, that explains alot. Gunner's Ass is a survivalist? Hehehe. Well, that explains a lot of the drool dripping down his chin...survival of the least fit. He's in his own personal fantasy world. He thinks he's a successful republican businessman who is living the American dream. The reality, he lives in Taft, Calif., which is outside Bakersfield. It's one ugly place, flat, desert-like, and nobody in their right mind ever wanted to live there. It was a place you drove by when you went up interstate 5 from LA to northern California. All that was there was oil wells and coyotes. He's living a lower working class life, he's never going to get ahead, he has no health insurance, he's already had one heart attack, and as for being a survivalist, I give you odds that he doesn't even live four more years. So despite his best laid plans to survive some Sci-Fi disaster fantasy in reality he'll die in poverty leaving nothing behind but junk and his dream of surviving will be nothing but that, a dream. Knowing what a moron he is makes it a lot easier to completely dismiss his twisted and irrelevant blather. Hawke I can see you have never been to Taft. Nicer than Bakersfield without the gang violence. In the desert foothills. Has a college, and is great if you are into the outdoors. My wife lived there for a few years as a child, as her dad was a Chevron employee. She did not feel deprived. Taft is a **** hole. -- John R. Carroll www.machiningsolution.com Ah ha, there's someone besides myself that knows about Taft. You'll notice that hardly anyone has ever heard of Taft, California. That isn't because it's such an awesome place. I'll put my town up against it any day of the week. I live in Chico, Ca. It's a very nice little town, has a state university here, it's full of trees and has creeks running through it, and most people that come here comment on how pretty it is. I've lived all over and this is one nice place. I've also passed by Taft many times when actually going someplace. Taft has never been a destination for anyone. Not quite true, I used to sky dive there in the 60's. It sucked then, too... Gunner has done a masterful job of making lemonade out of lemons by making his life sound like one we all are striving for. I guarantee that most of you would never want to trade places with Gunner, and that about says it all. But one thing for sure is that it is nothing like what you think of as the American dream. And as usual Gunner's fantasy about me being a weak out of shape slob living with Mom is utter rubbish. The truth is just about every thing Gunner made up about me is completely wrong. But then when you don't know the facts you make them up, at least that is what you do if you're a right winger. He would love it if I was a puny, timid, intellectual, wimp. You better believe it that nobody that has ever met me got that impression. Hawke Gunner makes up a lot of ****. I often wonder if he, HH&C and Jerry are split personalities inside the same diseased skull. Note the similarities, none are able to respond without spitting, all are brain-dead bushbots, and most importantly, all lie. -- --Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bush, a Disaster of Biblical Proportions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ .................................................. ............... Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access at http://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- |
Our economy...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:42:47 -0700, Hawke wrote:
: not feel deprived. Taft is a **** hole. It may not be Malibu, but is not a ********. It isn't even Arvin. Taft, like Bakersfield, is hell on earth on a still day. There are enough airborne volatiles that you can hardly breath. Well, normal humans find it hard to tolerate. I don't think the locals even notice. They do contract nasty diseases in numbers that look a lot like Love canal, however. -- John R. Carroll www.machiningsolution.com The more you write the more I know you are familiar with the area. I used to live in Orange county, California so I've been over the hill and up I-5 many times over the years. As you accurately noted the area immediately after you leave the mountains and hit the valley floor is one unattractive area. It's dry, smoggy, hot, lacks green vegetation, and as you might expect it's never been a place many people wanted to spend time in. Despite what Gunner says it's not a nice place. On the other hand, there are people who think Blythe is nice. Hawke Have either of you taken 33 through Taft to Ojai? Nice run on a motorcycle, same road Jimmy Dean died on in his Porche Speedster. Even the Fast Food sucks, hamburgers like shoe leather and prices are inflated. Do not order a milk shake or malt of any flavor! Caveat: I haven't been through 166?/33 in a decade or so. -- --Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bush, a Disaster of Biblical Proportions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ .................................................. ............... Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access at http://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- |
Our economy...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:23:13 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote: "John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Hawke" wrote in message ... "A Boater" wrote in message . .. wf3h wrote: On Sep 16, 5:18 am, Gunner Asch wrote: On the other hand..Im a survivalist and have made plans many many years ago to allow me to weather the crashing of the country, for whatever reason. ah...a survivalist. living in the idaho mountains, drooling on your bib about plots to dilute the white race's gene stock yeah, that explains alot. Gunner's Ass is a survivalist? Hehehe. Well, that explains a lot of the drool dripping down his chin...survival of the least fit. He's in his own personal fantasy world. He thinks he's a successful republican businessman who is living the American dream. The reality, he lives in Taft, Calif., which is outside Bakersfield. It's one ugly place, flat, desert-like, and nobody in their right mind ever wanted to live there. It was a place you drove by when you went up interstate 5 from LA to northern California. All that was there was oil wells and coyotes. He's living a lower working class life, he's never going to get ahead, he has no health insurance, he's already had one heart attack, and as for being a survivalist, I give you odds that he doesn't even live four more years. So despite his best laid plans to survive some Sci-Fi disaster fantasy in reality he'll die in poverty leaving nothing behind but junk and his dream of surviving will be nothing but that, a dream. Knowing what a moron he is makes it a lot easier to completely dismiss his twisted and irrelevant blather. Hawke I can see you have never been to Taft. Nicer than Bakersfield without the gang violence. In the desert foothills. Has a college, and is great if you are into the outdoors. My wife lived there for a few years as a child, as her dad was a Chevron employee. She did not feel deprived. Taft is a **** hole. -- John R. Carroll www.machiningsolution.com It may not be Malibu, but is not a ********. Mr. Carrol is a dazzling urbanite. He considers Simi Valley to be a rural ********. Nope..we dont have a Starbucks. The horror...the horror... Gunner |
Our economy...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:40:14 -0400, john
wrote: Gunner wrote: On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:34:55 -0400, john wrote: Gasoline is selling for three times what it was when Bush presumed office. Gasoline is going down, does he get credit for that too? Gummer apparently hasn't bought any gasoline in the past week or so. Odd...Last week it was $3.71, at the end of the week, it was $3.65, this morning I filled up at $3.59 Doesnt seem like much of a rise, least not on this planet You aint seen nuffing yet. Yet the claim was the price of fuel has skyrocketed in the last month, when its easily demonstrated its been falling. Sounds like the claiment is an outright liar, no? Gunner |
Our economy...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:43:17 -0400, john
wrote: Gunner wrote: On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:34:55 -0400, john wrote: I was really almost getting to like the republican ticket until I did a little research on the relaxation of the banking laws. Aparently the law was ammended in 1999 by an attachment to the budget bill. The attachment was created by Phil Graham. Now you all know who Phil Graham is, a lobyist for the banking industry and until a few weeks ago the adviser for John McCain. Phil is also the guy that they wrote about in this site. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_111857.html You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, The Huffington Post is only a **** hair to the Right of Pravda. Perhaps you may wish to review other data points? http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/...posed-in-2005/ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338629,00.html http://members4.boardhost.com/JohnSh...221523610.html How Fannie and Freddie weren't reined-in Posted by Jankdc on 9/15/2008, 4:06 pm This article is getting deleted on the servers, so I am printing it in full he How Fannie and Freddie weren't reined-in The Washington Post 5:04 AM EST September 15, 2008 Gary Gensler, an undersecretary of the Treasury, went to Capitol Hill in March 2000 to testify in favor of a bill everyone knew would fail. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were ascendant, giants of the mortgage finance business and key players in the Clinton administration's drive to expand homeownership. But Gensler and other Treasury officials feared the companies had grown so large that, if they stumbled, the damage to the U.S. economy could be staggering. Few officials had ever publicly criticized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but Gensler concluded it was time to urge Congress to rein them in. "We thought this was a hand-on-the Bible moment," he recalled. The bill failed. The companies kept growing, the dangers posed by their scale and financial practices kept mounting, critics kept warning of the consequences. Yet across official Washington, those who might have acted repeatedly failed to do so until it was too late. Last weekend, the federal government seized control of the two companies to protect the very mortgage market they were created to lubricate. The cost to taxpayers could run into the tens of billions of dollars. As policymakers now set out to decide what role government, and the two companies, should play in the mortgage business, the failures of the past two decades offer a cautionary tale. Blessed with the advantages of a government agency and a private company at the same time, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used their windfall profits to co-opt the politicians who were supposed to control them. The companies fought successfully against increased regulation by cultivating their friends and hounding their enemies. How Fannie and Freddie weren't reined-in The agencies that regulated the companies were outmatched: They lacked the money, the staff, the sophistication and the political support to serve as an effective check. But most of all, the companies were protected by the belief widespread in Washington -- and aggressively promoted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- that their success was inseparable from the expansion of homeownership in America. That conviction was so strong that many lawmakers and regulators ignored the peril posed to that ideal by the failure of either company. Weak regulator In October 1992, a brief debate unfolded on the floor of the House of Representatives over a bill to create a new regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. On one side stood Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican concerned that Congress was "hamstringing" this new regulator at the behest of the companies. He warned that the two companies were changing "from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the stockholding few." On the other side stood Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who said the companies served a public purpose. They were in the business of lowering the price of mortgage loans. Congress chose to create a weak regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. The agency was required to get its budget approved by Congress, while agencies that regulated banks set their own budgets. That gave congressional allies an easy way to exert pressure. "Fannie Mae's lobbyists worked to insure that [the] agency was poorly funded and its budget remained subject to approval in the annual appropriations process," OFHEO said more than a decade later in a report on Fannie Mae. "The goal of senior management was straightforward: to force OFHEO to rely on the [Fannie] for information and expertise to the degree that Fannie Mae would essentially regulate itself." Congress also wanted to free up money for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy mortgage loans and specified that the pair would be required to keep a much smaller share of their funds on hand than other financial institutions. Where banks that held $100 could spend $90 buying mortgage loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could spend $97.50 buying loans. Finally, Congress ordered that the companies be required to keep more capital as a cushion against losses if they invested in riskier securities. But the rule was never set during the Clinton administration, which came to office that winter, and was only put in place nine years later. The Clinton administration wanted to expand the share of Americans who owned homes, which had stagnated below 65 percent throughout the 1980s. Encouraging the growth of the two companies was a key part of that plan. "We began to stress homeownership as an explicit goal for this period of American history," said Henry Cisneros, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. "Fannie and Freddie became part of that equation." The result was a period of unrestrained growth for the companies. They had pioneered the business of selling bundled mortgage loans to investors and now, as demand from investors soared, so did their profits. Signal moment Near the end of the Clinton administration, some of its officials had concluded the companies were so large that their sheer size posed a risk to the financial system. In the fall of 1999, Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers issued a warning, saying, "Debates about systemic risk should also now include government-sponsored enterprises, which are large and growing rapidly." It was a signal moment. An administration official had said in public that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be a hazard. The next spring, seeking to limit the companies' growth, Treasury official Gensler testified before Congress in favor of a bill that would have suspended the Treasury's right to buy $2.25 billion of each company's debt -- basically, a $4.5 billion lifeline for the companies. How Fannie and Freddie weren't reined-in A Fannie Mae spokesman announced that Gensler's remarks had just cost 206,000 Americans the chance to buy a home because the market now saw the companies as a riskier investment. The Treasury Department folded in the face of public pressure. There was an emerging consensus among politicians and even critics of the two companies that Fannie Mae might be right. The companies increasingly were seen as the engine of the housing boom. They were increasingly impervious to calls for even modest reforms. As early as 1996, the Congressional Budget Office had reported that the two companies were using government support to goose profits, rather than reducing mortgage rates as much as possible. But the report concluded that severing government ties with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would harm the housing market. In unusually colorful language, the budget office wrote, "Once one agrees to share a canoe with a bear, it is hard to get him out without obtaining his agreement or getting wet." 'Big, fat gap' Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enjoyed the nearest thing to a license to print money. The companies borrowed money at below-market interest rates based on the perception that the government guaranteed repayment, and then they used the money to buy mortgages that paid market interest rates. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan called the difference between the interest rates a "big, fat gap." The budget office study found that it was worth $3.9 billion in 1995. By 2004, the office would estimate it was worth $20 billion. As a result, the great risk to the profitability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was not the movement of interest rates or defaults by borrowers, the concerns of a normal financial institution. Fannie Mae's risk was political, the concern that the government would end its special status. So the companies increasingly used their windfall for a massive campaign to protect that status. "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie Mae chief executive Franklin Raines said in a 1999 meeting with investors. So you like to be screwed by your necon buddies but don't like to be screwed by the leftwingers. I guess the necons have a better lubricant or leave a bigger piece of chocolate on the pillow. John Its a pity you dont even have a clue what neocon means. Typical leftard spew of buzzwords rather beyond their comprehension, but they heard other far leftwing extremist fringe kooks use it...so it must be a deadly insult. Get back to me when you do the research and tell all the readers what Neocon is, ok? As for being screwed...son...we are being screwed by greedy people of both political stripes, and a bunch of apolitical types. It appears that the wost of them have been donating to both parties ...greasing the skids to get a blind eye turned to their malfeasence. Its a pity that you think its the Ebile Neocons..and ignore the role your side of the aisle has played in it. You also forget that the Democrats have more Millionares in Congress than do the Republicans...and most didnt inherit their wealth....they got it the old fashion way...bilking it out of other people. Im partisan indeed, and for good reason. You are partisan, because you are a programmed Useful Idiot. I can change. ..you..well...shrug Gunner |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com