The "D" word.

[Saul Rodgar]

Actually the sub-prime scheme was neither devised by idiot CEOs nor by the Donkey or the Elephant. In fact, it was devised as a scheme in light of by-partisan efforts to allow very poor families who wanted to own a home to excactly do that - buy a home that they would never be allowed (!) to own by banking standards so that they can settle down, have a stable environment for growing up kids, a place from which all members of the family could find a stable job and set-up a settled existence. In a way, this was a very left-wing socialist idea, one would say in some parts of the political spectrum.

 

Thanks for the lecture. I guess I should have simply said that the idiot CEO's devised a way to get rich fast and easy by handing out (predatory) sub-prime mortgages like candy during class recess. These people should be chastised and not encouraged. A taxpayer bailout and severance payments only encourage these people to put everyone else at risk.

[Bruce Greene]

I knew there was a reason I majored in economics at that ivy league university. It has prepared me for this thread!

 

I really have just one thought to present about this:

 

Economies, I would like to argue, aren't really about money. It's about what we make, I mean the stuff we all make as a nation. Our standard of living is really the grand total sum of everything we produce (how it's distributed is a question for another thread!). As long as we're producing the same amount of stuff, we have the same overall standard of living.

 

In other words, think of it like you bought a house and the market price of the house drops. You haven't really lost any money, unless you sell now at a loss. After all, you still get to live in the house. It's the same with the economy as a whole. We haven't really lost anything, as long as everyone stays working and producing. If there is massive unemployment, thats when we really loose. If we avoid that, we don't loose a thing regardless of how much "money" the government must spend (or loan out) to stabilize expectations. It's only when we stop working that it actually costs us.

 

About this banking stuff, everyone lends money to others, who, in turn, lend it to more. It has a multiplier effect in that everyone has money on the books, it's just that they've loaned it someone else. So the total of the money supply expands. Now we have a panic, and everyone wants to be repaid quickly. Of course this can't all happen at once, without reversing the multiplier and shrinking the total money supply. If this panic is allowed to work it's way out, without intervention, the shrinking of the money supply will mean all prices and wages must drop quickly, to keep the same level of production using a reduced number of dollars. If the government simply supplies more dollars, to keep the value of the currency consistent, then prices and employment can remain stable. As lending resumes, the government can reduce the expansion of the money supply (due to the lending multiplier) and keep prices relatively stable. If we all keep working, there is really no big loss to us overall.

 

If the government doesn't intervene, and the system stalls and throws people out of work, we can never reclaim those lost working hours unless...Jim at the RED camera company can sell us a time machine for less than $20,000.

 

Are you all taking notes?:)

[Alex Ellerman]

re: left-wing socialist subprime mortgages: offhand, I don't know who dreamed them up, i've heard Clinton and Bush blamed. BUT... racially, black families were steered into higher risk/rates than white families something like 87% of the time. so while the mechanism may be socialist, the profits were all capitalismo.

 

re: 3 years of locked up paper on Lehman... I think you may be saying your friend had to vest her options over time? If so, I don't know why someone who worked at Lehmans 25 years didn't cash anything out, didn't diversify? after all, they should be somewhat investment savvy. saying that everyone got paid in stock from the janitor on down doesn't make it right to me - the CEO's still get 1000x more than anybody else (at least). I don't follow the logic, and i don't but that the Lehman name is toxic to her resume. it's just very competitive to find a job in the financial sector right now due to the contraction and poor market conditions.

 

re: "nothing is lost." that works on paper, the invisible hand. but we still feel inflation, deflation, stagflation? the buying power that is lost, the cost of living increase, and the fact that the super-rich, with money on the sidelines, can now buy up assets at fractional value, below replacement cost? doesn't that foster a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich?

 

i'm not all doom and gloom. happy about the long term and short term approach the govt. is taking. concerned that new oversight put in place will stagger business somewhat. wish that leadership had been more conscious during the last 5 years.

[Guest]

Have you guys been watching the news? Several media outlets have shown the chopper footage of the giant mansion owned by the president of Lehman Brothers. It's so big they have to be at least 2,000 feet up in the air and use the fisheye to get it all in :D

 

The reason they are showing it is because they know the public will be outraged that these are the types of people the gov't is bailing out. If the gov't takes that guys mansion and sells it at auction and leaves him out on the street, then we'll know the US gov't is serious about cleaning up Wall Street.

 

Until then, this bailout is nothing more than welfare for the super rich.

 

Again....no one bailed out Enron or WorldCom, why did those employees all lose their jobs??????

 

R,

[Bruce Greene]

re: "nothing is lost." that works on paper, the invisible hand. but we still feel inflation, deflation, stagflation? the buying power that is lost, the cost of living increase, and the fact that the super-rich, with money on the sidelines, can now buy up assets at fractional value, below replacement cost? doesn't that foster a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich?

 

If done well, if the government keeps the money supply in equilibrium, there will not be inflation or deflation. We can only consume what we produce, so if we're still working we haven't lost anything.

 

About the transfer of wealth of the poor to the rich, that is possible. It's also possible that it's a transfer of wealth from the rich to the rich. Or, from the middle class to the rich. Of course, in all times, there are rich people who don't seem to deserve to be rich. Many people who took out so called "sub prime" mortgages put almost no money down on the house. So when they loose the house to foreclosure, it's not the ex-homeowner who looses, but the people who lent them the money. And who ultimately is that? Large investment funds like pensions and things like that. That's whom we're primarily bailing out here. In a sense we're bailing out ourselves. Unfortunately, that means that the irresponsible business leaders who made a lot of fees (billions in fees) making these loans will get off scott free. Of course they are already off scott free, even when the business they work for fails! They might need a new job, but they still have the mansion. And if they were really smart, they didn't own too much company stock :blink:

 

It would be a shame to punish the greedy evildoers by throwing the country out of work so that they're standard of living decreases as a punishment.

 

And for my next point topic: The rich-they are only as rich as they spend (consume). Bill Gates only takes food out of the mouths of the poor when he uses his money (power) to command that work be done for him directly, or he consumes resources. If he doesn't use his wealth, it's as if it doesn't exist to the rest of us. If Mr. Gates were to take all his money and burn it, it would be the same as if he gave equal amounts to everyone else to get rid of it. Think of it: If Bill Gate's charitable works are not effective, then he would help the poor much more by burning all his money.

[Alex Ellerman]

to drop interest rates, they already increased the money supply (which they did several times in the past year). the injections of capital to ease the liquidity crisis is the same, increasing the money supply, aka diluting the cash holders, and is essentially a non-apportioned tax... it's already here - the money supply is NOT in equilibrium. that is the question the Fed must answer: isn't their primary job (even though they are neither Federal nor reserve, they are PRIVATE ) to protect the integrity of the dollar???

[Nate Downes]

Have you guys been watching the news? Several media outlets have shown the chopper footage of the giant mansion owned by the president of Lehman Brothers. It's so big they have to be at least 2,000 feet up in the air and use the fisheye to get it all in :D

 

The reason they are showing it is because they know the public will be outraged that these are the types of people the gov't is bailing out. If the gov't takes that guys mansion and sells it at auction and leaves him out on the street, then we'll know the US gov't is serious about cleaning up Wall Street.

 

Until then, this bailout is nothing more than welfare for the super rich.

 

Again....no one bailed out Enron or WorldCom, why did those employees all lose their jobs??????

 

R,

Oh, they were bailed out... well the CEO's and executives were. Now that the R's are not the majority party in congress, such naked payouts are not given rubber stamps, so the exec branch has to bail out the whole company else wouldn't get a dime for it.

[Nate Downes]

to drop interest rates, they already increased the money supply (which they did several times in the past year). the injections of capital to ease the liquidity crisis is the same, increasing the money supply, aka diluting the cash holders, and is essentially a non-apportioned tax... it's already here - the money supply is NOT in equilibrium. that is the question the Fed must answer: isn't their primary job (even though they are neither Federal nor reserve, they are PRIVATE ) to protect the integrity of the dollar???

The feds current interest rate policys are keeping the market from siezing up as it did in 1929, but it is also threatening to force the market into Hyperinflation as seen in Germany after WWI or Argentina in the late 90's.

[Ira Ratner]

Several media outlets have shown the chopper footage of the giant mansion owned by the president of Lehman Brothers. It's so big they have to be at least 2,000 feet up in the air and use the fisheye to get it all in.

 

If the gov't takes that guys mansion and sells it at auction and leaves him out on the street, then we'll know the US gov't is serious about cleaning up Wall Street.

 

And wonderful news today from Paulson who's orchestrating the bailout, whom no one in this country has ever HEARD of until last week, and I'm paraphrasing:

 

"Well, no--this bailout can't provide protection for in-danger homeowners. And no, this bailout can't impose restrictions yet on how these companies do business, because we just can't do all of this 'at the same time.' "

 

What the hell is going on? With all of the economic geniuses who say they know why this meltdown is taking place (geniuses on TV, in government and on this site), can I ask why no one has foretold this? And how we can actually get a comment here that it was BLACKS defaulting on their mortgages that started this? And we're supposed to TRUST this bailout plan? And even trust the politicians we TRUST to know what they're doing?

 

I'm no economist, but here's what this genius here thinks happened, How to fix it--who the hell knows:

 

1) In most regions, home prices have been way overvalued for too long, and because new home construction has become such an indicator of economic growth, as long as this number was "cool," everything in the country was cool. We're like Venezuela, where everything has to do with the price of oil, but because of record high oil prices and socialist policies, they let daily output go down the toilet.

 

But new home construction and buying is based on borrowed money, so this really means and indicates nothing besides what our financial institutions allow it to indicate. And I think the jury is pretty much in that these institutions can no longer be trusted to not only know what they're doing, but to even CARE about they're doing, and whether it's good for the country.

 

I have DOZENS of bar-buddies who made a lot of money flipping houses that kept going up in value for no discernible reasons at all--ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE WAS SO MUCH NEW CONSTRUCTION GOING ON!!!

 

Supply and demand? Remember?

 

So how does a bank issue a mortgage for a house that sold for $150,000 last year, and a year later is selling for $250,000? This is where the small guys trying to make a score had a ball--with the bank's complicity in issuing these mortgages. They "fed" the frenzy and grew the bubble.

 

2) 401Ks--a CURSE on this country.

 

401Ks gave companies an excuse not to offer individual SAFE retirement/pension plans, which were commonplace in the 70s. By the 80s, they were dead. So instead, all of our 401k money went to bolster this ridiculous thing called Wall Street, whether we wanted to or not. And while we were all riding high on these INCREDIBLE new levels Wall Street was reaching, none of it had to do with market confidence or company performance. It had to do with the working people of America who had no other CHOICE but to put their money there.

 

But if in fact we DID want to invest in the market, again, they didn't even give us the option to pick the stocks of our choice. We were given a long menu of "Funds" to choose from, all taking a piece of everything we contributed (one way or the other), and playing their own little games with corporations playing THEIR games!

 

Hey--if I wanted to take my 5% 401K contribution and just stick it into a savings account, why the hell can't I? Or if I WANTED to get involved the stock market, pick my specific stock(s)?

 

So, when you hear a politician talking about privatizing Social Security (and I keep coming back to this), we are talking about either economic morons or corrupt thieves. There are two I can think of who I won't mention--but one doesn't know how many houses he owns, and the other doesn't know how to spell it.

 

3) Since we no longer manufacture anything here in significant numbers besides weapons and food, I don't think we can blame this all on the price of oil. A country that doesn't produce will fall.

 

And sorry to say it, especially with the world food crisis (rising prices and such), but I think it's time for the U.S. to start USING food as a weapon in its dealing with other nations, regardless of the criticism we get over it.

 

I am a RAGING liberal, but we have to take care of business here before we can take care of the rest of the world.

 

Screw the bailout and create a new program with that same money to help qualified Americans. Lower taxes. Kill NAFTA. Pump up food production and solar/wind/hydro development. Get out of Iraq. Nuke Iran. Make peace with the Russians (because who cares about Georgia in the first place). And let's take it from there.

 

Now if you don't mind, I have to start getting ready to see Beaver and Wally Cleaver, as well Eddie Haskell, who are making an appearance at the Seminole Coconut Creek Casino just 2 miles from me.

 

I wonder what THEY think about all of this stuff!?

[Stephen Williams]

And wonderful news today from Paulson

 

Hi,

 

I sssume everybody knows Paulson was the Chief Executive @ Goldman Sachs until 2006, no doubt much of his estimated $700,000,000 fortune s in GS stock, so he will benefit more than most. GS traded below $90 on Thursday and closed at $129.80 still a far cry from $247.92 on the 31 October 2007.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=GS#char...ource=undefined

 

 

Stephen

[Michael Lehnert]

Hi,

 

I sssume everybody knows Paulson was the Chief Executive @ Goldman Sachs until 2006, no doubt much of his estimated $700,000,000 fortune s in GS stock, so he will benefit more than most. GS traded below $90 on Thursday and closed at $129.80 still a far cry from $247.92 on the 31 October 2007.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=GS#char...ource=undefined

 

 

Stephen

 

 

The problem is that most people actually don't know that. In fact, most people are not really interested in the surrounding framework of their lives, social, economic, let alone political - not good if you are a citizen of a democracy, irrespective of it being a federal or republican or direct or constitutional or monarchic one.

 

The funny thing with regards to Goldman in the current situation is that most of the executives/"leaders" in rival firms (such as Lehman's), the Fed, the government and seconding companies like rating agencies, are Goldman alumni.

 

I think I can already see a conspiracy theory coming up (the book probably being titled "The Goldman Circle" or "The Goldman Files") that all this is a ploy by GS to get rid of competition and remain as the last standing investment bank of relevance on this planet. After all, they sold all their sub-prime liabilities and stopped accepting Credit Default Swaps and recalled all derivative securities in Spring 07, and then held a media meeting warning about a looming crisis based on the sub-prime morgage speculative bubble - which evidently burst later last summer 07.

 

"Honi soit qui mal y pense" :lol:

 

 

 

 

I've spent the last couple of days jumping out of a window. I've learned some stuff. There's some info they left out of the 1930's stories: It's not the window; it's the number of floors. My ranch style house is too close to the ground. Now, my knees are all scuffed up. Dohhh!

 

And rightly so, for starting this thread, Paul! ;) :lol:

 

Good observation about the floors. Let my allow some localisation to you: ranch-style house sounds nice. Any horses around? Find one, tie a long rope to it, which you then attach to your neck. Then play the current business news to the horse (either portable transistor radio -- ops, hat word just dated me, I fear -- or whatever...). It will probably shriek and get paniced and run to its bank to retrieve its money and dissolve its account their. As a side-effect, it will break your neak. Problem solved. Can I get your Frankenmitchell, then? :)

[Ira Ratner]

In fact, most people are not really interested in the surrounding framework of their lives, social, economic, let alone political - not good if you are a citizen of a democracy, irrespective of it being a federal or republican or direct or constitutional or monarchic one.

 

You see, therein lies the rub:

 

What average American (or anyone) has the capacity or TIME to follow this stuff as closely as the experts--who are screwing it all up in the first place? They're too busy working for a living, and that's why we have governments.

 

To say they're not interested in the framework of their lives is just too flippant and simplistic an explanation. As if "they" are dopes somehow (me too!), and after working a 12-hour shift, they're supposed to take night classes in economics--from the very experts who don't know what the f*** they're talking about.

 

You know, it used to be illegal to dispense financial advice in this country without following certain guidelines, licensing, ETHICS (remember those?), etc.

 

Now we got Fox news and a hundred other media outlets presenting programs where the theme is, "Play the market! It's FUN!!! And you're a dope if you DON'T!!!"

 

Ahhh--ain't deregulation grand? We used to also have something in this country called the Federal Trade Commission, to protect us from unscrupulous business practices and dangerous or worthless products.

 

And now all they do is let us know when poisoned Chinese baby formula enters the country--and let thousands of companies rip us off with promises of larger penises.

 

I've been taking those pills for 6 months, and I'm STILL not one inch longer than my normal eleven!!!

Edited September 21, 2008 by Ira Ratner

[Michael Lehnert]

QUOTE (Michael Lehnert @ Sep 19 2008, 05:52 PM)

Actually, what triggered the global spread of the depression across the globe in 29 was the procectionist stance the US government took with raising tariffs that effectively halted "globalisation" . . .

 

I wasn't talking about what triggered the 29' crash, but its results to the world economy. Most of the historical analyses of the '29 crash coincide in that, chief among its causes, were the speculative boom of the earlier part of the decade and the tightening of monetary policies by the fed. Your theory seems at odds with the majority of the accepted causes of the '29 crash, ...

 

 

Actually, had you read my post that you quoted yourself, you would have realised that I was not talking about what triggered the 29 crash, but what triggered the global spread of the depression. Crash and Depression are two different occurences that coincided and where correlative to each other, but are in no way the same thing. That is why the current media frenzy is irresponsible and leads to unnecessary insecurites for everyone and to a psychological conditioning of the markets that is, well, "bad". It is mostly driven by people who really are quite uneducated about what they are talking every day (journalism my word) that mixes crashes, speculative trading in shares and commodities, housing markets, fiscal policies, monetary policies and consumber debt (the next big thing later this year that will challenge commercial banks) into one big thing.

 

If you are interested in reading about that outside of wiki (nothing against wiki, BTW, just not be accussed of snobbism or whatever), go for the books on these topics by Charles P Kindleberger and J.K. Galbraith. I still think these should be on the curriculum of every secondary school, as they are easy to read and great in insight. Unfortunately, they aren't even on many Ivy League reading lists any more. Here at Houghton Street, they are readings for Week 1.

 

 

re: 3 years of locked up paper on Lehman... I think you may be saying your friend had to vest her options over time? If so, I don't know why someone who worked at Lehmans 25 years didn't cash anything out, didn't diversify? after all, they should be somewhat investment savvy. saying that everyone got paid in stock from the janitor on down doesn't make it right to me - the CEO's still get 1000x more than anybody else (at least).

 

I know this is difficult to understand when you scrape-by with $100 per months to leave some life (not even a decent one), but most "rich people" (whatever this actually means) are not rich as "we" are "poor", i.e. with little or no money on their current account, and a clear number on the mortgage due by this date. I guess you have to dive into this world to grasp it.

 

This will be the crudest simplification since that post that proved that Digital will replace Film, but I will give it a shot:

Most of the "gadzillions" of Dollars or Sterlings or Swiss Francs that "rich people" have, is actually virtual money (just as virtual as the money they work and trade with every day). This enables them to get certain material goods based on their virtual income (bonuses, i.e. mostly non-sellable stock options that is now often worthless) that serves as security. If I walk into a Aston showroom, I won't even get a brochure. If Mr Rich walks in, s/he will receive a car with monthly payments (or even free as "endorsement") that - honestly - even "we" could afford had we that clout and halo over our had that the listing in Fortune allows. All the material goods that "rich people" supposedly have that gets paraded in front of us in the media (knowing that after tits, blood and general misery, nothing sells as good as some good old class-warfare) is actually rarely owned by them, and disappears rapidly out of their hands once their virtual prosperity appears insecured or even evaporates.

 

I know it sounds silly, but you can actually get alot with being rich on paper.

 

Oh, and yes, they do actually pay their taxes on "virtual money" - which is why here in London, with the GLA relying up to 30% of taxes flowing in from the City and Canary Wharf, might get a serious tax-flow problem soon. At least I can now expect that property prices are coming down here to a non-ludicrous level in London over the next 2 years. Britain will be much heavier affected by this than the US. Expect trouble in Germany, too, but for different reasons.

 

Like Fran did, the best barometer of economic development is to look around: the classifieds for Harley's is a very good thing. I have mine, and they are better indicators than watching the business news" that tells you how it is".

 

This for that. I actually don't feel comfortable talking "for the fat cat bankers" here just for the sake of trying to bring in a more varied perspectives to this thread that descended all to rapidly into Socialist theory lesson one.

But this forum lives because alternative experiences get shared, whether its about setting up an Aaton or discussing that one take out of "Casino". So I don't want this thread to be so badly one-sided, either. Nevertheless, I am off here now.

 

-Michael

[Michael Lehnert]

You see, therein lies the rub:

 

What average American (or anyone) has the capacity or TIME to follow this stuff as closely as the experts--who are screwing it all up in the first place? They're too busy working for a living, and that's why we have governments.

 

To say they're not interested in the framework of their lives is just too flippant and simplistic an explanation. As if "they" are dopes somehow (me too!), and after working a 12-hour shift, they're supposed to take night classes in economics--from the very experts who don't know what the f*** they're talking about.

 

You know, it used to be illegal to dispense financial advice in this country without following certain guidelines, licensing, ETHICS (remember those?), etc.

 

Now we got Fox news and a hundred other media outlets presenting programs where the theme is, "Play the market! It's FUN!!! And you're a dope if you DON'T!!!"

 

Ahhh--ain't deregulation grand? We used to also have something in this country called the Federal Trade Commission, to protect us from unscrupulous business practices and dangerous or worthless products.

 

And now all they do is let us know when poisoned Chinese baby formula enters the country--and let thousands of companies rip us off with promises of larger penises.

 

I've been taking those pills for 6 months, and I'm STILL not one inch longer than my normal eleven!!!

 

 

a) the greatest economic thinkers of our time all came out of 12hour shift working conditions.

 

B) good info sources are around and today more easily accessable than ever. If someone decides to watch US television instead, then this is this persons decision. Tv consumption is always easier. But bligh me, US tv is really deep-poop. I watched it on my recent trip to LA, and I got all sorts of conditions after mere 5 minutes, when I decided to switch it off and take a cleansing shower.

 

c) as long as Fox News presenters aren't in your house, hold a gun barrel to your head and shout "Speculate, invest, or I blow your fu**ing head off!", this has nothing to do with deregulation, but with people who decide by themselves to put their money into what can potentially be a volatile place. The best way to invest in shares - according to André Kostolany - is to buy in a bear market, take sleeping pills in respect to the market, and wake up to them 40 years later. All these "average people" who are selling their portfolios on their own initiative now because they feel doom coming, really are the biggest loosers of this situation. But it's their own decision. Don't put your money into something you don't understand. That's why I don't have a Harley ;) .

[Ira Ratner]

a) the greatest economic thinkers of our time all came out of 12hour shift working conditions.

 

B) good info sources are around and today more easily accessable than ever. If someone decides to watch US television instead, then this is this persons decision. Tv consumption is always easier. But bligh me, US tv is really deep-poop. I watched it on my recent trip to LA, and I got all sorts of conditions after mere 5 minutes, when I decided to switch it off and take a cleansing shower.

 

c) as long as Fox News presenters aren't in your house, hold a gun barrel to your head and shout "Speculate, invest, or I blow your fu**ing head off!", this has nothing to do with deregulation, but with people who decide by themselves to put their money into what can potentially be a volatile place. The best way to invest in shares - according to André Kostolany - is to buy in a bear market, take sleeping pills in respect to the market, and wake up to them 40 years later. All these "average people" who are selling their portfolios on their own initiative now because they feel doom coming, really are the biggest loosers of this situation. But it's their own decision. Don't put your money into something you don't understand. That's why I don't have a Harley ;) .

 

So may I ask, with all due respect, from where are Americans to get their news? Financial or otherwise? For which you fault them fot not doing so?

 

The web? (Which sites?) The newspapers? (Which ones?) Your aunts and uncles?

 

Again, you are putting the blame on the individual investor, as opposed to the institutions and regulations in place to assure, to a degree, safe and responsible investing.

 

Let alone the dam THIEVERY that has taken place with cooking the books, like Enron.

 

Or were Enron investors not responsible, including their employee?

 

But you avoided my main point:

 

FORCED stock market investment via 401Ks, which artificially drove up stock prices.

 

I didn't have a dime in the market until 1986, and for right or for wrong, that was my decision and none of anyone's damn business.

 

Come 401k, and I HAD no choice.

[Guest]

This is good reading on the subject:

 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...00.html?cnn=yes

 

I love how he refers to national health care like it will be a bad thing for the USA!

 

R,

[Saul Rodgar]

"When an individual consumer uses a new credit card to pay off

astounding debt from an old credit card, it's akin to check kiting,

which is is illegal. Apparently, though, when the government does it,

it's billed as Serious Public Policy. Because that's what this

supposedly prudent bailout bill would do: Force taxpayers to borrow

$700 billion from foreign banks to pay off the bad debt of Wall Street

banks. During a crisis that is aimed at preventing interest rates from

skyrocketing, nobody has been able to explain how adding almost a

trillion dollars to the interest rate-exacerbating national debt would

do anything other than undermine the plan's underlying objective.

Worse, the U.S. Treasury Department itself

admits that the $700 billion number is "not based on any particular

data point" - that is, they created it out of thin air because "We just

wanted to choose a really large number." Slapping that amount of money

onto the national credit card when our government can't even justify

the amount is beyond absurd - it is insane."

 

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/200809...billion-bailout

[Joe Giambrone]

"Nuke Iran. "

 

Are you insane?

 

If that's supposed to be a joke, it's not funny.

[Alex Ellerman]

The attached pdf was on reddit, written by John Allison of Banch Banking & Trust...

a very sane and short analysis of what needs to be done.

allison.pdf

[Paul Bruening]

If I hold my hands over my ears, shut my eyes tight and say real loud, "B'rrrrumb, b'rrrrrumb, b'rrrrrumb..." will the bad news go away?

[Michael Lehnert]

If I hold my hands over my ears, shut my eyes tight and say real loud, "B'rrrrumb, b'rrrrrumb, b'rrrrrumb..." will the bad news go away?

 

No, but you might end up in an asylum doing that.

Might be a good place to be in now, mind you.

Assured food plus light activities for you.

 

-Michael