100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Where does it stop? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
<----- Only surviving stack of money that escaped AIG and lived to tell about it.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew...that much I do know...ty. I was just never interested in the history of that I guess. maybe I should brush up
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'm not well versed on Marxism so that I don't know about. but the government does NOT need to seize companies that have a "potenital" to fail. the government does not need that much power. I wouldn't want Geithner to balance my check book let alone give him more power It is not accurate so don't get too worked up. what isn't accurate....and ummm...i'm sitting here very calmly so i'm not getting worked up over anything. temporary or not....the government does not need that much power It is too late for worrying about the government involvement in these situations. The government is going to act to save the companies it can. The assets that are "toxic" have to be dealt with. Any company holding them is in danger. The toxic assets will be bought by the government and then they will have to be dealt with as lucratively as they can be so that we will not have to pay it all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
still don't see how I was inaccurate. I called it like I saw it. The government doesn't need that much power...temporarily or not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102306389 Geithner proposed new regulations today that would essentially give him the full authority to seize any institution that has potential to fail. Unlimited, unabated authority. The fact is, the government is not one to "negotiate." Odds are, any company that is taken over would "renegotiate" with those with a vested political interest and let the rest burn. Government has no place in the market. I understand that the result of the failure of a company like AIG would have serious repercussions, but those in the Obama are using potential economic failure like Dubya's administration used terrorists - to seize liberties. The stake in companies being bailed out was a test - those in the company had to decide to take the money. Under this, the government could seize any company they wish with no prior approval. We must stand up against this dangerous prescient. This is just the foot in the door to nationalization of the financial industry. They, Obama included have said already they do not want the government running these companies. All decisions at this level will be temporary. I guess folks do not listen or understand sometimes. Then why even propose it? That is the problem. If that is the case, Obama needs to issue a statement tomorrow that that is not the intentions of his administration and Geithner needs a new plan. There has to be some way to remove the toxic assets from these companies in order for the companies to get out of trouble. These asset were all the bundled bad loans and stuff. There is no other way because if there was they would have found it by now. I have already written to my representatives about this issue and I recommend others do the same. If they are going to buy these assets and set up a temporary holding for them, they need to also be figuring out what to do with the bad assets and close down the agency or entity that was used to remove them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
still don't see how I was inaccurate. I called it like I saw it. The government doesn't need that much power...temporarily or not Where did I say you were inaccurate? You have the right to have your opinion of course like everyone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just thinking that they could be thinking of desperate moves to try to help keep the economy from getting worse. And when these moves ruin the economy further, we can always say that more desperate measures needed. It is not unlike watching a drunk teenager recklessly driving his truck hitting everything he can reach down the street, and saying, "well, he needs to do whatever he can to stop the nightmare, and if that involves running down that senior citizen on the crosswalk, then so be it". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
yellowrose10
on
Tue 03/24/09 10:57 PM
|
|
i'm not well versed on Marxism so that I don't know about. but the government does NOT need to seize companies that have a "potenital" to fail. the government does not need that much power. I wouldn't want Geithner to balance my check book let alone give him more power It is not accurate so don't get too worked up. what isn't accurate....and ummm...i'm sitting here very calmly so i'm not getting worked up over anything. temporary or not....the government does not need that much power Marx was one of the original proponents of what became communism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
read the banned book, none dare call it a conspiracy. it explains everything about power, the CFR, and the tri-lateral commission, and their aims for the country, and the future of the world. it will belong to the rich, period. and anybody that stands in their way, swims with the fishes. you can doubt me, but you can't doubt the facts, or the wars, or the adjendas. it's easy to see through the landscape, if you look, and recognize what to look for. it becomes pitifully easy after a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
still don't see how I was inaccurate. I called it like I saw it. The government doesn't need that much power...temporarily or not Where did I say you were inaccurate? You have the right to have your opinion of course like everyone. you said it is not accurate. I assumed you meant what I said. If I assumed incorrectly...I apologize. it was in response to my post which is why I asked about your post |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102306389 Geithner proposed new regulations today that would essentially give him the full authority to seize any institution that has potential to fail. Unlimited, unabated authority. The fact is, the government is not one to "negotiate." Odds are, any company that is taken over would "renegotiate" with those with a vested political interest and let the rest burn. Government has no place in the market. I understand that the result of the failure of a company like AIG would have serious repercussions, but those in the Obama are using potential economic failure like Dubya's administration used terrorists - to seize liberties. The stake in companies being bailed out was a test - those in the company had to decide to take the money. Under this, the government could seize any company they wish with no prior approval. We must stand up against this dangerous prescient. This is just the foot in the door to nationalization of the financial industry. They, Obama included have said already they do not want the government running these companies. All decisions at this level will be temporary. I guess folks do not listen or understand sometimes. Then why even propose it? That is the problem. If that is the case, Obama needs to issue a statement tomorrow that that is not the intentions of his administration and Geithner needs a new plan. There has to be some way to remove the toxic assets from these companies in order for the companies to get out of trouble. These asset were all the bundled bad loans and stuff. There is no other way because if there was they would have found it by now. I have already written to my representatives about this issue and I recommend others do the same. If they are going to buy these assets and set up a temporary holding for them, they need to also be figuring out what to do with the bad assets and close down the agency or entity that was used to remove them. There is always another way - oddly enough, my way. Let the toxic (actually no longer toxic - Obama's propagandists have now declared them "legacy" assets in many speeches.) assets destroy the institutions. They will eventually rebuild. That is the real answer. I hear all about how the last 30 years is a "failed" ideology, what about keeping companies afloat that continue to fail after billions of dollars? case in point, BofA. once one of the only banks that could stay afloat with no problems, they are not on the forefront. They saw the opportunity to get a sh*tload of low-cost loans from the government so they began buying up failed banks. now they're getting money hand over fist in a situation they knowingly created. $170B, down the tubes at AIG. All for what? And BTW, "because they haven't found it yet" is never a reason to go forth with a policy this idiotic. besides, once it's in place, how do you know it'll be repealed? It's obvious where Obama's administration is attempting to take the government and repealing that kind of power does not fit the agenda. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
still don't see how I was inaccurate. I called it like I saw it. The government doesn't need that much power...temporarily or not Where did I say you were inaccurate? You have the right to have your opinion of course like everyone. you said it is not accurate. I assumed you meant what I said. If I assumed incorrectly...I apologize. it was in response to my post which is why I asked about your post No apology needed 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102306389 Geithner proposed new regulations today that would essentially give him the full authority to seize any institution that has potential to fail. Unlimited, unabated authority. The fact is, the government is not one to "negotiate." Odds are, any company that is taken over would "renegotiate" with those with a vested political interest and let the rest burn. Government has no place in the market. I understand that the result of the failure of a company like AIG would have serious repercussions, but those in the Obama are using potential economic failure like Dubya's administration used terrorists - to seize liberties. The stake in companies being bailed out was a test - those in the company had to decide to take the money. Under this, the government could seize any company they wish with no prior approval. We must stand up against this dangerous prescient. This is just the foot in the door to nationalization of the financial industry. They, Obama included have said already they do not want the government running these companies. All decisions at this level will be temporary. I guess folks do not listen or understand sometimes. Then why even propose it? That is the problem. If that is the case, Obama needs to issue a statement tomorrow that that is not the intentions of his administration and Geithner needs a new plan. There has to be some way to remove the toxic assets from these companies in order for the companies to get out of trouble. These asset were all the bundled bad loans and stuff. There is no other way because if there was they would have found it by now. I have already written to my representatives about this issue and I recommend others do the same. If they are going to buy these assets and set up a temporary holding for them, they need to also be figuring out what to do with the bad assets and close down the agency or entity that was used to remove them. There is always another way - oddly enough, my way. Let the toxic (actually no longer toxic - Obama's propagandists have now declared them "legacy" assets in many speeches.) assets destroy the institutions. They will eventually rebuild. That is the real answer. I hear all about how the last 30 years is a "failed" ideology, what about keeping companies afloat that continue to fail after billions of dollars? case in point, BofA. once one of the only banks that could stay afloat with no problems, they are not on the forefront. They saw the opportunity to get a sh*tload of low-cost loans from the government so they began buying up failed banks. now they're getting money hand over fist in a situation they knowingly created. $170B, down the tubes at AIG. All for what? And BTW, "because they haven't found it yet" is never a reason to go forth with a policy this idiotic. besides, once it's in place, how do you know it'll be repealed? It's obvious where Obama's administration is attempting to take the government and repealing that kind of power does not fit the agenda. I guess you will not see so I need not waste the typing. You have your own agenda obviously. MO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
still don't see how I was inaccurate. I called it like I saw it. The government doesn't need that much power...temporarily or not Where did I say you were inaccurate? You have the right to have your opinion of course like everyone. you said it is not accurate. I assumed you meant what I said. If I assumed incorrectly...I apologize. it was in response to my post which is why I asked about your post No apology needed i'm still confused as to what you said was not accurate. my post or the OP? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102306389 Geithner proposed new regulations today that would essentially give him the full authority to seize any institution that has potential to fail. Unlimited, unabated authority. The fact is, the government is not one to "negotiate." Odds are, any company that is taken over would "renegotiate" with those with a vested political interest and let the rest burn. Government has no place in the market. I understand that the result of the failure of a company like AIG would have serious repercussions, but those in the Obama are using potential economic failure like Dubya's administration used terrorists - to seize liberties. The stake in companies being bailed out was a test - those in the company had to decide to take the money. Under this, the government could seize any company they wish with no prior approval. We must stand up against this dangerous prescient. This is just the foot in the door to nationalization of the financial industry. They, Obama included have said already they do not want the government running these companies. All decisions at this level will be temporary. I guess folks do not listen or understand sometimes. Then why even propose it? That is the problem. If that is the case, Obama needs to issue a statement tomorrow that that is not the intentions of his administration and Geithner needs a new plan. There has to be some way to remove the toxic assets from these companies in order for the companies to get out of trouble. These asset were all the bundled bad loans and stuff. There is no other way because if there was they would have found it by now. I have already written to my representatives about this issue and I recommend others do the same. If they are going to buy these assets and set up a temporary holding for them, they need to also be figuring out what to do with the bad assets and close down the agency or entity that was used to remove them. There is always another way - oddly enough, my way. Let the toxic (actually no longer toxic - Obama's propagandists have now declared them "legacy" assets in many speeches.) assets destroy the institutions. They will eventually rebuild. That is the real answer. I hear all about how the last 30 years is a "failed" ideology, what about keeping companies afloat that continue to fail after billions of dollars? case in point, BofA. once one of the only banks that could stay afloat with no problems, they are not on the forefront. They saw the opportunity to get a sh*tload of low-cost loans from the government so they began buying up failed banks. now they're getting money hand over fist in a situation they knowingly created. $170B, down the tubes at AIG. All for what? And BTW, "because they haven't found it yet" is never a reason to go forth with a policy this idiotic. besides, once it's in place, how do you know it'll be repealed? It's obvious where Obama's administration is attempting to take the government and repealing that kind of power does not fit the agenda. I guess you will not see so I need not waste the typing. You have your own agenda obviously. MO no, please. Defend your position. We all have agendas and opinions. I just expect everyone to back their own up with their own thoughts and conclusions. Why must we buy up these toxic assets? What will the end result be on the bank's books be? how will that impact the markets? i already know the answers to the last two and have heard compelling arguments about the first but I want to hear your justifications. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
still don't see how I was inaccurate. I called it like I saw it. The government doesn't need that much power...temporarily or not Where did I say you were inaccurate? You have the right to have your opinion of course like everyone. you said it is not accurate. I assumed you meant what I said. If I assumed incorrectly...I apologize. it was in response to my post which is why I asked about your post No apology needed i'm still confused as to what you said was not accurate. my post or the OP? The OP and some following remarks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you will not see so I need not waste the typing. You have your own agenda obviously. MO Your "agenda" is that you seek the reality. Why can't you just stay in dreams, Andrew? Let's pull ourselves out of the bog by our own bootstraps! It is possible, if you really really want it! OMG 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
still don't see how I was inaccurate. I called it like I saw it. The government doesn't need that much power...temporarily or not Where did I say you were inaccurate? You have the right to have your opinion of course like everyone. you said it is not accurate. I assumed you meant what I said. If I assumed incorrectly...I apologize. it was in response to my post which is why I asked about your post No apology needed i'm still confused as to what you said was not accurate. my post or the OP? The OP and some following remarks. Again, you mind backing up your position? It's not asking much. if you have developed an opinion, you surely have enough knowledge to back up that opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102306389 Geithner proposed new regulations today that would essentially give him the full authority to seize any institution that has potential to fail. Unlimited, unabated authority. The fact is, the government is not one to "negotiate." Odds are, any company that is taken over would "renegotiate" with those with a vested political interest and let the rest burn. Government has no place in the market. I understand that the result of the failure of a company like AIG would have serious repercussions, but those in the Obama are using potential economic failure like Dubya's administration used terrorists - to seize liberties. The stake in companies being bailed out was a test - those in the company had to decide to take the money. Under this, the government could seize any company they wish with no prior approval. We must stand up against this dangerous prescient. This is just the foot in the door to nationalization of the financial industry. They, Obama included have said already they do not want the government running these companies. All decisions at this level will be temporary. I guess folks do not listen or understand sometimes. Then why even propose it? That is the problem. If that is the case, Obama needs to issue a statement tomorrow that that is not the intentions of his administration and Geithner needs a new plan. There has to be some way to remove the toxic assets from these companies in order for the companies to get out of trouble. These asset were all the bundled bad loans and stuff. There is no other way because if there was they would have found it by now. I have already written to my representatives about this issue and I recommend others do the same. If they are going to buy these assets and set up a temporary holding for them, they need to also be figuring out what to do with the bad assets and close down the agency or entity that was used to remove them. There is always another way - oddly enough, my way. Let the toxic (actually no longer toxic - Obama's propagandists have now declared them "legacy" assets in many speeches.) assets destroy the institutions. They will eventually rebuild. That is the real answer. I hear all about how the last 30 years is a "failed" ideology, what about keeping companies afloat that continue to fail after billions of dollars? case in point, BofA. once one of the only banks that could stay afloat with no problems, they are not on the forefront. They saw the opportunity to get a sh*tload of low-cost loans from the government so they began buying up failed banks. now they're getting money hand over fist in a situation they knowingly created. $170B, down the tubes at AIG. All for what? And BTW, "because they haven't found it yet" is never a reason to go forth with a policy this idiotic. besides, once it's in place, how do you know it'll be repealed? It's obvious where Obama's administration is attempting to take the government and repealing that kind of power does not fit the agenda. I guess you will not see so I need not waste the typing. You have your own agenda obviously. MO no, please. Defend your position. We all have agendas and opinions. I just expect everyone to back their own up with their own thoughts and conclusions. Why must we buy up these toxic assets? What will the end result be on the bank's books be? how will that impact the markets? i already know the answers to the last two and have heard compelling arguments about the first but I want to hear your justifications. I really do not want to address someone who thinks that this is some kind of power play to take over the country because I believe that is garbage. If you know that the companies holding these toxic assets will be in severe trouble then you already know why and you also know the only entity able to remove those assets is the government because any other company will drown under the pressure. The purpose of all of this is too prevent a depression. Foresight of what is coming if these dominoes fall. It is an attempt to save the country from the depression. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you will not see so I need not waste the typing. You have your own agenda obviously. MO Your "agenda" is that you seek the reality. Why can't you just stay in dreams, Andrew? Let's pull ourselves out of the bog by our own bootstraps! It is possible, if you really really want it! OMG i knew i should have taken the blue one. |
|
|
|
|
