Re: I can't take it anymore

Of course. When you have a snot-nosed fairy Democrat leftist weenie like Barney Frank creating such regulations you know who will be next.

Successful bus "I don't want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everyone that is behind you. They have a chance for success too."

...Jim Thompson

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Well, you might be right... we'll see.

It would be awfully disappointing.

The main sticking point there is defining "a chance for success" -- plenty of conservatives support controls on, e.g., how big companies becomes (anti-trust laws and whatnot), how business is conducted, etc. Even you include "public funding for schools and lbiraries" under "a chance for success."

Of course, these days a lot of formerly anti-government-messing-around-in-business businessmen are now the ones pleading for bailouts! And it's hard to believe that the bulk of their motivation really is trying to keep their employees from losing their jobs...

Many of the banks were examined by the Fed and /required/ to accept bailout money. And now Congress is adjusting those companies' pay scales to be more Party-friendly.

Why the gov wants to buy crappy companies is a mystery. And why they'd need to control the good ones mystifies too.

James Arthur

I see the opposite. A bunch of people got caught playing the government's games, by government rules. And they got burned, so now they're shy.

Those are the guys the administration's so a) dead-set on saving, and b) is so frantic that they aren't as interested in playing the government's games right now.

Cheers, James Arthur

ir

obs...

James Arthur has this delusion that when the banks made ninja homes loans to people who were never going to pay the interest, let alone repay the capital, they were playing the government's game, by the government's rules.

The government had wanted to the banks to make home loans to good credit risks who happended to live in low income neighbourhoods - the banks, being idle and stupid, had preferred to assume that everybody who lived in a low income neighbourhood was a poor credit risk, and their reaction to the government's initiatives was to make homes loans to everybody who asked for them.

Since James Arthur is somewhat blinkered by his incapacity to see bankers as lazy criminals, he sees this behaviour as "playing the government's games by the government's rules" which misrepresents reality with an enthusiasm that Jim Thompson would be hard-matched to emulate.

The government isn't dead-set on saving the criminal nit-wits who made the ninja loans, merely the other banking activities that keep the economy going. The government isn't entirely pleased that the bankers involved don't seem to realise that they screwed up and wrecked the economy, and consequently don't actually deserve the "performance bonuses" that they still seem to be planning on paying themselves.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Oh, set aside your patriotic Two-minute's Hate for the Enemies of The Revolution and think for a moment.

Obama's saving all our failures and making them permanent: AIG, the car companies, Freddie and Fannie, the government-driven medical care bubble, the government-driven education bubble, etc.

And those "evil" bankers? He scolds them, but he's making them all whole.

He wants to institutionalize failure.

Going after criminals? Those would be the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae execs who knowingly, aggressively bought these loans on our (taxpayer's) behalf, guaranteed them, and collected huge bonuses for it.

The government was the banks' paymaster and biggest customer.

And the government--the GSEs--lied and swindled their shareholders (us, ultimately), but they're staffed with Clinton cronies, part of the government, and exempt.

James Arthur

You'd have better luck looking for a violation of Conservation of Energy.

John

jobs...

I'm always pleased to note that I'm the highest standard for Slowman's disdain, but please don't feed the jerk. Let him die that most unpleasant of deaths... alone ;-)

...Jim Thompson

The problem is this:

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Let Sloman chant and chant wrong stuff, and the mantra becomes Truth.

That's how we got political correctness, the race card, the New Math, the New Reading, etc.

But I've cut down quite a bit haven't I?

Cheers, James Arthur

If I drank coffee, it'd be all over my screen.

Good thing I don't drink coffee.

Cheers, James Arthur

es

heir

jobs...

There's no "Two-minutes hate" in what I posted - try reading what I actually wrote, rather than letting it trigger your knee-jerk response.

He's not saving them in the way they'd like to be saved - merely supporting them to the extent that allow your economy to keep on turning over.

I'm a bit surprise that you think that you have a government driven health care bubble - American health care is roughly twice as expensive per head as comparable health care systems in other advanced industrial countries, and the extravagance isn't government driven or

- in any significant sense - government supported. Your lealth care system is expensive because it isl largely privately administered by a remarkkaly expensive bunch of administrators, and because it tends to over-treat the patients because the doctors practice defensive medicine at the behest of their liability insurors, which mostly benefits the ambulance-chasing lawyers who collect most of the medical liability awards.

Obama is keeping the banks in business - rational opinion holds that he doesn't have much choice - and he's doing what he can to improve the oversight (which doesn't seem to be much, granting the defects of your political system).

I'm sure that is the last thing he wants, but your congress isn't exactly flexible.

Actually, it would be the people who made the bad loans then passed them on the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as qualifying home loans. But you don't accept that bankers have a responsibility to assess the credit-worthiness of the people they lend money to, so you find this incomprehensible.

Right. And the banks ripped tehm off.

In your bizarre fairy tales this might be true, but all that you are saying is that it can't have been the banks who swindled the government, because the free market is always perfect.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

nes

their

r jobs...

There's not a lot of point is deciding which right-wing nit-wit is further out of touch with reality. James Arthur has the rather specialised delusion that the banks could do no wrong, while Jim has silly ideas on a varieyt of subjects, but as Dr.Johnson said, "There is no settling the point of precedence between a louse and a flea".

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

=A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson

You have posted quite a lot of stuff which would have to be seen as lies if you weren't such an obviously deluded right-wig nitwit.

It would be irresponsible to give this mindless rubbish a free ride - idiotic misconceptions can be mistaken for accepted truths if they are ignored, rather than flagged as nonsense.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

"Bankers bad, government good." --Bill Sloman

So,

Q: why was the government buying all their loans, why did Barney Frank defend the GSEs when their misdeeds came to light, and why aren't we trying to claw back Raines' $90M in bonuses?

A: Because they were partners. Boss & henchmen.

Cheers, James Arthur

I'm always pleased to note that I'm the highest standard for Slowman's disdain, but please don't feed the jerk. Let him die that most unpleasant of deaths... alone ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Good?

Cheers, James Arthur

Thank you ;-)

...Jim Thompson

He could be in the middle of a crowd of 50,000 people and would still be alone.

Just on this point.

Back on February 28th, 2007, when there was that precipitated disaster in China's stock market, I remember the BBC ponying up a group of "international bankers" to talk about what could be done and what to expect. These included a banker from China and from all over the world, not just some agreeable group. They disagreed about quite a few things. The talk lasted for a couple of hours. But one point that was made, and left entirely unchalleneged -- the fact that countries no longer have the ability they once had and that most of the capital was under control of private interests, not countries. They _all_ agreed that no country or group of countries could unilaterally move forward without the cooperation of private capital, which they agreed today holds the lion's share of power.

Jon