Frugal Living: 26 new messages in 6 topics

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Can a rental property be used as a Roth IRA investment? - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3e9345a6d41c09d2?hl=en
* The Birk (bailout)Plan - 7 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7353d0c8c3ba3c4a?hl=en
* Math on the bailout doesn't add up... - 8 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3213ff522966e10e?hl=en
* I'm celebrating because the bailout failed! - 6 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/8ad3e712cb6e0e31?hl=en
* Question about a new website called Bailecn - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/fbb64cc5bd1e6f4c?hl=en
* How many trillion has the FED already injected? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a9b52a8a6b700372?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can a rental property be used as a Roth IRA investment?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3e9345a6d41c09d2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 2:43 pm
From: itsjoannotjoann@webtv.net

On Sep 29, 5:33 am, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:24:58 -0500, Mark Anderson
>
> <m...@nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
> >In article n...@none.net says...
> >> Anyone have any ideas on this? Thanks for your input.
>
> >The first place I go for any advice on complicated financial, legal, or
> >relationship matters is here on Usenet.
>
> Me too. But to be safe I get a second opinion from my parrot.
> Trust but verify.
>
> --Vic

>
>
My cat gives me great advice on any subject I bring up. Perhaps the
OP should consider getting a cat, too??

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Birk (bailout)Plan
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7353d0c8c3ba3c4a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 2:56 pm
From: "ChairMan"

The Birk Plan

Hi All,

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in "We Deserve It
Dividend".

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonifide U. S.
Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child.
So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up.

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a "We Deserve It
Dividend".

Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends
$25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband
and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage, housing crisis solved. Repay college loans, what a
great boost to new grads Put away money for college, it'll
be there Save in a bank, create money to loan to entrepreneurs. Buy a new
car, create jobs Invest in the market , capital drives growth
Pay for your parent's medical insurance, health care improves Enable
Deadbeat Dads to come clean, or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who
lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company
that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it... instead of
trickling out a puny $1000.00 (vote buy) economic incentive that is being
proposed by one of our candidates for President.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S
Citizen 18+!

As for AIG liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to
being American General. Sell off the real estate. Let the private
sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can never work. Maybe???

But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion "We
Deserve It Dividend" more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in
Washington DC.

And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5
Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Pass it on!!

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 3:26 pm
From: Zilbandy

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:56:59 -0500, "ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> wrote:

>My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a "We Deserve It
>Dividend".

I'd be double checking my math, if I were you. :)

--
Zilbandy

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 3:30 pm
From: "Dave"

"ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> wrote in message
news:48e14fe9$0$4926$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>
> The Birk Plan
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.
>
> Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in "We Deserve
It
> Dividend".
>
> To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonifide U. S.
> Citizens 18+.
>
> Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and
child.
> So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up.
>
> So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.

Interesting idea, which has a huge flaw in it. We don't have 85 billion.
In fact, we are in the hole to the tune of many Tens of TRILLIONS. But if
we had 85 billion? Yeah, I like your idea. Too bad it won't work, no
matter how many people support it, as it's not mathematically possible.
That is, unless we immediately stop all spending on everything. But even
then, we'd have to tax everybody $425K, before we could turn around and give
everybody $425K.

Simply, it won't work. -Dave

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 4:03 pm
From: clams_casino

Zilbandy wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:56:59 -0500, "ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a "We Deserve It
>>Dividend".
>>
>>
>
>I'd be double checking my math, if I were you. :)
>
>
>

That's the same math that got all the banks into trouble.

Hopefully Obama does something about upgrading the US education system.

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 4:32 pm
From: Marsha

clams_casino wrote:
>
> Hopefully Obama does something about upgrading the US education system.

I don't think it's as much of an education problem as it is a lack of
family structure and personal accountability problem.

Marsha/Ohio

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 5:22 pm
From: "Dave"

"Marsha" <mas@xeb.net> wrote in message news:gbrohg$s40$1@news.datemas.de...
> clams_casino wrote:
> >
> > Hopefully Obama does something about upgrading the US education system.
>
> I don't think it's as much of an education problem as it is a lack of
> family structure and personal accountability problem.
>
> Marsha/Ohio
>

No, I see it as a "no connection to reality" problem. If someone thinks we
have 85BN or 700BN just sitting around waiting to be spent on bailing out
irresponsible financial corporations, or to be re-distributed to the
taxpayers, or whatever...

They obviously aren't living on THIS planet. :) -Dave

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 7:08 pm
From: clams_casino

Dave wrote:

>"Marsha" <mas@xeb.net> wrote in message news:gbrohg$s40$1@news.datemas.de...
>
>
>>clams_casino wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hopefully Obama does something about upgrading the US education system.
>>>
>>>
>>I don't think it's as much of an education problem as it is a lack of
>>family structure and personal accountability problem.
>>
>>Marsha/Ohio
>>
>>
>>
>
>No, I see it as a "no connection to reality" problem. If someone thinks we
>have 85BN or 700BN just sitting around waiting to be spent on bailing out
>irresponsible financial corporations, or to be re-distributed to the
>taxpayers, or whatever...
>
>They obviously aren't living on THIS planet. :) -Dave
>
>
>
>

Obviously you have no concept of what's going on - the problem or the
proposed solution.

Ignorance may be bliss, but potentially dangerous.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Math on the bailout doesn't add up...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3213ff522966e10e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 3:11 pm
From: Gunner Asch

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:28:37 -0400, Ann <nntpmail@epix.net> wrote:

Interesting you failed to address those. Ill bet you had a reason
however, no?

And snipping the entirety of the rebuttal to the Leftists claim its
Bush's and the Republicans fault...really is indicative.

Gunner

"Obama, raises taxes and kills babies. Sarah Palin - raises babies
and kills taxes." Pyotr Flipivich

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 3:34 pm
From: Curly Surmudgeon

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:11:18 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:28:37 -0400, Ann <nntpmail@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:22:16 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:34:40 -0400, Ann <nntpmail@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:35:32 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:29:32 -0700, "nospam" <a@b.c> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Not a single word from Bush or anyone in his administration,
>>>>>>apologizing for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a
>>>>>>direct result of their relentless pursuit of deregulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually..the records show that they tried to stiffen up the
>>>>> regulations both in 2003 and in 2005
>>>>
>>>>The records show that the Republicans had control of both the Senate
>>>>and House through the end of 2004. Bush made the request that Congress
>>>>give Treasury oversight in 2003.
>>>>
>>> Odd..the Democrats control both the House and Senate since 2006. Yet
>>> they did nothing. So are they to blame?
>>
>>Nothing odd about it. Yes, the Democrats are partly at fault. Although,
>>realistically, a bill passed in 2007 (assuming Bush had signed it) would
>>have been unlikely to prevent the melt-down. The horse was not only out
>>of the barn; it was miles away.
>>
>><...>
> You seem to have missed the references to the bills in 2003 and 2005, both
> blocked by the Demonrats.

And you seem to have missed, ignored, this response upstream:

Subject: Re: Math on the bailout doesn't add up...
From: Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.rural,misc.consumers.frugal-living,sci.energy,misc.survivalism
Date: 29 Sep 2008 20:59:12 GMT

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:22:16 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:34:40 -0400, Ann <nntpmail@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:35:32 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:29:32 -0700, "nospam" <a@b.c> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Not a single word from Bush or anyone in his administration,
>>>>apologizing for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a
>>>>direct result of their relentless pursuit of deregulation.
>>>>
>>>>These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Actually..the records show that they tried to stiffen up the
>>> regulations both in 2003 and in 2005
>>
>>The records show that the Republicans had control of both the Senate and
>>House through the end of 2004. Bush made the request that Congress give
>>Treasury oversight in 2003.
>>
>>
> Odd..the Democrats control both the House and Senate since 2006. Yet
> they did nothing. So are they to blame?
>
>
> "Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, Worldcom and other early
> 2000's scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton era,
> the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.

The Republicans were indeed responsible for the Tech Stock bubble and the
Housing bubble.

The Bubbles:

IN 1997 the Gingrich Congress passed the "Taxpayer Relief Act" as a
totally veto proof bill. Clinton could no more veto this Republican tax
cut than he could have turned back the tide. The vote in the House was
3xx to < 50 and in the Senate it was 90 to 8 (or close to it). No veto of
that bill was possible. It was a Republican bill all the way. That tax
code adjustment allowed people to cash out of their homes (a retirement
vehicle for most Americans) and to use the TAX FREE capital gains for
speculative purposes in the highly touted tech stocks and, at the sam3e
time to use a new home as a speculative vehicle.. And the gains from such
gambling ("investment") would be taxed at a mere 15%. Prior to this
speculation enabling bill homeowners could move from one home to another
with no tax penalty and could then take a one time exemption at retirement
(empty nest). But the new rules allowed the American to use the money
from the house to gamble in both real estate and in the stock market.

Prior to this Republican tax cut, Clinton in 1995 attempted to veto a bill
passed by the Republicans that prevented small stockholders from suing the
management of tech companies for lying about "forward looking" estimates
of profits. That Republican bill was heavily lobbied by the tech sector.

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/News/clinton.htm ---------------------- On
December 20, 1995, President Clinton vetoed the Public Securities
Litigation Reform Act, which would have restricted lawsuits against
corporation accused of securities fraud. In his veto message, Clinton
presciently noted that while he supported the notion of reducing frivolous
lawsuits: "I am not, however, willing to sign legislation that will have
the effect of closing the courthouse door on investors who have legitimate
claims. Those who are the victims of fraud should have recourse in our
courts. Our markets are as strong and effective as they are because they
operate -- and are seen to operate -- with integrity. I believe that this
bill, as modified in conference, could erode this crucial basis of our
markets' strength." The GOP Congress overrode Clinton's veto.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

> Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to F&F. Dems opposed
> them especially Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who now run Congress' key
> banking panels. History is utterly clear about this.
>
> After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999 of the
> "systemic risk" posed by F&F, Congress held hearings the next year. But
> nothing was done. Why? F&F had donated millions to key congressmen and
> radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.

John the Con, McCain who presented a bill for altering the oversight of
Fannie Mae had simply seen an opportunity in the Firing of then CEO Raines
(A Clinton administration person) to move Fannie Mae much more into the
private sector and away from oversight by the OFHEO which had cited
accounting discrepancies at Fannie that resulted in the firing. A classic
case of ab-using a scandal to move the oversight to Republican control.

> "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our
> credit and interest risks" Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton
> official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to investors in 1999.

Raines is __NOT__ an adviser to Obama, never was, and has told the Faux
News liars so in no uncertain terms. Yet the Lying Pigs will not leave it
alone. Obama's campaign people did contact Raines to ask about what
happened in 2004 when Raines was ousted as CEO of Fannie Mae.

> In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4
> trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families."
> It made F&F take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid
> EVER.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/
AR2008060902626_2.html --------------------------------- In 2000, as HUD
revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted.
With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular. Consumer
advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low "teaser"
interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications.

HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for
loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted
without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie
adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.

That year, Freddie bought $18.6 billion in subprime loans; Fannie did not
disclose its number.

In 2001, HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime
loans.

"Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and
African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and
resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern," an
agency report said.
ad_icon

But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's
purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure
rates also were rising.

That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing
goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent. John C.
Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged
behind even the private market and "must do more."

For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by
subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still,
their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market.

"That was a huge, huge mistake," said Patricia McCoy, who teaches
securities law at the University of Connecticut. "That just pumped more
capital into a very unregulated market that has turned out to be a
disaster."

In 2003, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they
purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought
$169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20
percent. Generally, Freddie purchased more than Fannie and relied more
heavily on the securities to meet goals.

"The market knew we needed those loans," said Sharon McHale, a spokeswoman
for Freddie Mac. The higher goals "forced us to go into that market to
serve the targeted populations that HUD wanted us to serve," she said.

> Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton
> recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposd what the New York Times
> called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance
> industry since the S&L crisis a decade ago."
>
> The plan included a new regulator for F&F, one that could boost capital
> mandates and look at how they managed risk. Even after regulators in
> 2003 uncovered a scheme by F&F executives to overstate earnings by $10.6
> billion to boost bonuses, Dems killed reform.
>
> "F&F are not facing any kind of financial crisis" said Barney Frank,
> then-ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. North
> carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of "weakening the
> bargain power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable
> housing."
>
> In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: "We are placing
> the total financial system of the future at substanial risk."
>
> That year, Sen. John McCain, one of the three sponsors of a F&F reform
> bill, said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue
> to be exposed to the enormous risk that F&F pose to the housing market,
> the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."
>
> Sen. Harry Reid--now Majority Leader--accused the GOP of trying to
> "cripple the ability of F&F to carry out their mission of expanding home
> ownership."
>
> THE BILL WENT NOWHERE!!
>
> This year, the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this
> being a "Republican" disaster. McCain has repeatedly called for
> reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned
> Congress. Some GOP members are complicit but F&F were created by Dems,
> regulated by Dems, largely run by Dems and protected by Dems.
>
> That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion." Terry Jones

The US government could buy out every loan in the minority neighborhoods
for approximately $200B and the taxpayers wouldn't lose a dime. The
Republicans are making a mountain out of a molehill because they have
nothing else. The Republicans have been in control of the Congress since
1995 and as George Bush took the Oval office in 2001 they have been in
control of the entire government since 2000 and they have done nothing
blown bubbles:

To insinuate that this rat turd is the cause of the current financial
meltdown is quite typical of the Republicans. This is a "nit" in the
current meltdown, but what else do the deregulating moronic Republicans
have? This is it, and they must dress it up and put as much lipstick on
it as possible. Most certainly the nonsense surrounding the "Community
Reinvestment Act" is an absurdity when we actually look at the minuscule
number of failed mortgages that were inside the boundaries where this act
was of any import. The US government could BUY OUT every one of these for
a pittance.

The attempt to alter the oversight of Fannie Mae in 2005 passed the House
in a vote of 39x to 2x and then was hijacked by the Republican Senate with
its own version. The Republican Senate attempted to weaken government
oversight by placing Fannie and Freddie further into the private sector
having it looked after in the same way as Federal Reserve that has failed
miserably since the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 has "looked after"
the banking sector in general. Those who wish to read the actual bill
that was sponsored in the Senate by John the Con, McCain will see that it
attempted to move Fannie and Freddie out from under the eye of the Office
of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) or to rename OFHEO. This
was the same OFHEO that had found "accounting discrepancies" at Fannie Mae
and replaced Franklin Raines (CEO and X Clinton man) with an individual
more acceptable to the deregulating Republicans. The reality was that the
Republicans thought they had found an opportunity to promote more
Republican control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Reality versus Republican pig manure:

The reality is that Frennie Mae's acceptance of less than stellar
mortgages was an attempt to support George Bush's version of a Lyndon
Johnson "Great Society" referred to as "The Ownership Society". The Bush
initiative for home ownership was the kingpin of the Republican fake
economy built on government debt and propped up by even more private
sector debt. Whereas government debt is actually fiat money (a fact)
then, to the moron Republicans and their pet neoclassical moronic
economists, private sector debt must also be good. Surely you understand
that "deficits don't matter". And while the complicit actions of the Fed
in lax oversight of the banks was seminal to the overall bubble blowing
fake economy, the centerpiece that allowed tax cuts for the rich and
concurrent imperialism the "American Dream Downpayment Act".

Lets take a look at who was running this ship since 2000:

http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20020618_housinginitiative.htm ----
Published: June 18, 2002
NAR, NAHB Endorse White House, HUD Minority Housing Initiative by Realty
Times Staff

The National Association of Realtors praised President George W. Bush and
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez for their commitment
to increasing minority homeownership opportunities and pledged its full
support for the White House minority homeownership initiative announced
yesterday. Regional Vice President Bob McMillan of Decatur, Ala.,
represented NAR -- one of about a dozen partners in this public-private
initiative -- at this morning's announcement ceremony at St. Paul AME
Church in Atlanta.

-------------------------------------------------------------

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_92843512 -----

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 15, 2002

The National Association of Realtors(R) announced today that it has made a
pledge to the White House to help meet the President's challenge to
increase the number of minority homeowners in America by 5.5 million
before the end of the decade.
----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031015-10.html For
Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 15, 2003

President Calls on Senate to Pass American Dream Downpayment Act Remarks
by the President on Housing and the Economy
----------------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 16, 2003

President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 Remarks by the
President at Signing of the American Dream Downpayment Act Department of
Housing and Urban Development Washington, D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5246/is_200403/ai_n19793121 --
Mortgage Banking, March, 2004 :
FANNIE MAE HAS ANNOUNCED A PLEDGE to help 6 million families--including
1.8 million minority families--become first-time homeowners over the next
decade. The pledge boosts the company's commitment to President Bush's
Minority Homeownership Initiative and will help raise the minority
homeownership rate from 50.6 percent currently to 55 percent, with the
ultimate goal of closing the gap between minority homeownership rates and
nonminority homeownership rates.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

But the reason you don't see garbage about the role played by Fannie Mae
anywhere but on Faux News is that it just isn't newsworthy. It is
because it is right wing crap that is almost irrelevant.

Yup. Raines is currently a supposed crook that mis-stated the financial
position of Fannie so as to gain a windfall from bonuses. But that has
little or nothing to do with any of the _*current*_ problems in the
economy or even with the current problems at Fannie. The problems at
Fannie that stem from the "Community Reinvestment act" pale in
significance to the problems resulting from the "Bush Home Ownership
Initiative" and the "American Dream Downpayment Act". And those problems
in turn are minuscule compared to the bubble created by normal middle
class people attempting to create capital gains by speculating in the
price of homes. These Republicans have had total control of HUD since
January of 2001. Bill Clinton is history and if the economy was in
jeopardy due to a Clinton failure in 1999 or a Carter failure of 1977 they
had the power and the time to get it fixed. But they didn't get anything
fixed and instead fanned the flames of speculation. And the Bush home
ownership initiatives were simply a part of the lying fascist pig
Republican war party economics of debt.

> Interesting you failed to address those. Ill bet you had a reason
> however, no?

Interesting that you ignored Michael Coburn's patient rebuttal to your
evasions and lies by misdirection.

> And snipping the entirety of the rebuttal to the Leftists claim its
> Bush's and the Republicans fault...really is indicative.

Which you do regularly when the facts do not fit your reality bubble.

> Gunner

Dumber than his cannon.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't Be Frightened, Bush Lied
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 3:23 pm
From: Ann

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:11:18 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:

Already covered (scroll up).

> Interesting you failed to address those. Ill bet you had a reason
> however, no?

Already covered (scroll up).

> And snipping the entirety of the rebuttal to the Leftists claim its Bush's
> and the Republicans fault...really is indicative.

Indicative of its irrelevance. I never made the claim that it was
entirely "Bush's and the Republicans fault" so there was nothing to rebut.

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 5:52 pm
From: "Jim"

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote
> The Republicans were indeed responsible for the Tech Stock bubble and the

Just because they made it =possible= for people to be fools and act on their
stupid ideas, doesn't make it their fault...

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 2:53 pm
From: Curly Surmudgeon

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:59:12 +0000, Michael Coburn wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:22:16 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:34:40 -0400, Ann <nntpmail@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:35:32 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:29:32 -0700, "nospam" <a@b.c> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Not a single word from Bush or anyone in his administration,
>>>>>apologizing for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a
>>>>>direct result of their relentless pursuit of deregulation.
>>>>>
>>>>>These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Actually..the records show that they tried to stiffen up the
>>>> regulations both in 2003 and in 2005
>>>
>>>The records show that the Republicans had control of both the Senate and
>>>House through the end of 2004. Bush made the request that Congress give
>>>Treasury oversight in 2003.
>>>
>>>
>> Odd..the Democrats control both the House and Senate since 2006. Yet
>> they did nothing. So are they to blame?
>>
>>
>> "Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, Worldcom and other early
>> 2000's scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton era,
>> the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.
>
> The Republicans were indeed responsible for the Tech Stock bubble and the
> Housing bubble.
>
> The Bubbles:
>
> IN 1997 the Gingrich Congress passed the "Taxpayer Relief Act" as a
> totally veto proof bill. Clinton could no more veto this Republican tax
> cut than he could have turned back the tide. The vote in the House was
> 3xx to < 50 and in the Senate it was 90 to 8 (or close to it). No veto of
> that bill was possible. It was a Republican bill all the way. That tax
> code adjustment allowed people to cash out of their homes (a retirement
> vehicle for most Americans) and to use the TAX FREE capital gains for
> speculative purposes in the highly touted tech stocks and, at the sam3e
> time to use a new home as a speculative vehicle.. And the gains from such
> gambling ("investment") would be taxed at a mere 15%. Prior to this
> speculation enabling bill homeowners could move from one home to another
> with no tax penalty and could then take a one time exemption at retirement
> (empty nest). But the new rules allowed the American to use the money
> from the house to gamble in both real estate and in the stock market.
>
> Prior to this Republican tax cut, Clinton in 1995 attempted to veto a bill
> passed by the Republicans that prevented small stockholders from suing the
> management of tech companies for lying about "forward looking" estimates
> of profits. That Republican bill was heavily lobbied by the tech sector.
>
> http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/News/clinton.htm ---------------------- On
> December 20, 1995, President Clinton vetoed the Public Securities
> Litigation Reform Act, which would have restricted lawsuits against
> corporation accused of securities fraud. In his veto message, Clinton
> presciently noted that while he supported the notion of reducing frivolous
> lawsuits: "I am not, however, willing to sign legislation that will have
> the effect of closing the courthouse door on investors who have legitimate
> claims. Those who are the victims of fraud should have recourse in our
> courts. Our markets are as strong and effective as they are because they
> operate -- and are seen to operate -- with integrity. I believe that this
> bill, as modified in conference, could erode this crucial basis of our
> markets' strength." The GOP Congress overrode Clinton's veto.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to F&F. Dems opposed
>> them especially Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who now run Congress' key
>> banking panels. History is utterly clear about this.
>>
>> After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999 of the
>> "systemic risk" posed by F&F, Congress held hearings the next year. But
>> nothing was done. Why? F&F had donated millions to key congressmen and
>> radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.
>
> John the Con, McCain who presented a bill for altering the oversight of
> Fannie Mae had simply seen an opportunity in the Firing of then CEO Raines
> (A Clinton administration person) to move Fannie Mae much more into the
> private sector and away from oversight by the OFHEO which had cited
> accounting discrepancies at Fannie that resulted in the firing. A classic
> case of ab-using a scandal to move the oversight to Republican control.
>
>> "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our
>> credit and interest risks" Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton
>> official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to investors in 1999.
>
> Raines is __NOT__ an adviser to Obama, never was, and has told the Faux
> News liars so in no uncertain terms. Yet the Lying Pigs will not leave it
> alone. Obama's campaign people did contact Raines to ask about what
> happened in 2004 when Raines was ousted as CEO of Fannie Mae.
>
>> In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4
>> trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families."
>> It made F&F take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid
>> EVER.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/
> AR2008060902626_2.html --------------------------------- In 2000, as HUD
> revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted.
> With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular. Consumer
> advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low "teaser"
> interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications.
>
> HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for
> loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted
> without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie
> adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.
>
> That year, Freddie bought $18.6 billion in subprime loans; Fannie did not
> disclose its number.
>
> In 2001, HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime
> loans.
>
> "Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and
> African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and
> resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern," an
> agency report said.
> ad_icon
>
> But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's
> purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure
> rates also were rising.
>
> That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing
> goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent. John C.
> Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged
> behind even the private market and "must do more."
>
> For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by
> subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still,
> their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market.
>
> "That was a huge, huge mistake," said Patricia McCoy, who teaches
> securities law at the University of Connecticut. "That just pumped more
> capital into a very unregulated market that has turned out to be a
> disaster."
>
> In 2003, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they
> purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought
> $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20
> percent. Generally, Freddie purchased more than Fannie and relied more
> heavily on the securities to meet goals.
>
> "The market knew we needed those loans," said Sharon McHale, a spokeswoman
> for Freddie Mac. The higher goals "forced us to go into that market to
> serve the targeted populations that HUD wanted us to serve," she said.
>
>> Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton
>> recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposd what the New York Times
>> called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance
>> industry since the S&L crisis a decade ago."
>>
>> The plan included a new regulator for F&F, one that could boost capital
>> mandates and look at how they managed risk. Even after regulators in
>> 2003 uncovered a scheme by F&F executives to overstate earnings by $10.6
>> billion to boost bonuses, Dems killed reform.
>>
>> "F&F are not facing any kind of financial crisis" said Barney Frank,
>> then-ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. North
>> carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of "weakening the
>> bargain power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable
>> housing."
>>
>> In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: "We are placing
>> the total financial system of the future at substanial risk."
>>
>> That year, Sen. John McCain, one of the three sponsors of a F&F reform
>> bill, said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue
>> to be exposed to the enormous risk that F&F pose to the housing market,
>> the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."
>>
>> Sen. Harry Reid--now Majority Leader--accused the GOP of trying to
>> "cripple the ability of F&F to carry out their mission of expanding home
>> ownership."
>>
>> THE BILL WENT NOWHERE!!
>>
>> This year, the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this
>> being a "Republican" disaster. McCain has repeatedly called for
>> reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned
>> Congress. Some GOP members are complicit but F&F were created by Dems,
>> regulated by Dems, largely run by Dems and protected by Dems.
>>
>> That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion." Terry Jones
>
> The US government could buy out every loan in the minority neighborhoods
> for approximately $200B and the taxpayers wouldn't lose a dime. The
> Republicans are making a mountain out of a molehill because they have
> nothing else. The Republicans have been in control of the Congress since
> 1995 and as George Bush took the Oval office in 2001 they have been in
> control of the entire government since 2000 and they have done nothing
> blown bubbles:
>
> To insinuate that this rat turd is the cause of the current financial
> meltdown is quite typical of the Republicans. This is a "nit" in the
> current meltdown, but what else do the deregulating moronic Republicans
> have? This is it, and they must dress it up and put as much lipstick on
> it as possible. Most certainly the nonsense surrounding the "Community
> Reinvestment Act" is an absurdity when we actually look at the minuscule
> number of failed mortgages that were inside the boundaries where this act
> was of any import. The US government could BUY OUT every one of these for
> a pittance.
>
> The attempt to alter the oversight of Fannie Mae in 2005 passed the House
> in a vote of 39x to 2x and then was hijacked by the Republican Senate with
> its own version. The Republican Senate attempted to weaken government
> oversight by placing Fannie and Freddie further into the private sector
> having it looked after in the same way as Federal Reserve that has failed
> miserably since the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 has "looked after"
> the banking sector in general. Those who wish to read the actual bill
> that was sponsored in the Senate by John the Con, McCain will see that it
> attempted to move Fannie and Freddie out from under the eye of the Office
> of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) or to rename OFHEO. This
> was the same OFHEO that had found "accounting discrepancies" at Fannie Mae
> and replaced Franklin Raines (CEO and X Clinton man) with an individual
> more acceptable to the deregulating Republicans. The reality was that the
> Republicans thought they had found an opportunity to promote more
> Republican control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
>
> Reality versus Republican pig manure:
>
> The reality is that Frennie Mae's acceptance of less than stellar
> mortgages was an attempt to support George Bush's version of a Lyndon
> Johnson "Great Society" referred to as "The Ownership Society". The Bush
> initiative for home ownership was the kingpin of the Republican fake
> economy built on government debt and propped up by even more private
> sector debt. Whereas government debt is actually fiat money (a fact)
> then, to the moron Republicans and their pet neoclassical moronic
> economists, private sector debt must also be good. Surely you understand
> that "deficits don't matter". And while the complicit actions of the Fed
> in lax oversight of the banks was seminal to the overall bubble blowing
> fake economy, the centerpiece that allowed tax cuts for the rich and
> concurrent imperialism the "American Dream Downpayment Act".
>
> Lets take a look at who was running this ship since 2000:
>
>
> http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20020618_housinginitiative.htm ----
> Published: June 18, 2002
> NAR, NAHB Endorse White House, HUD Minority Housing Initiative by Realty
> Times Staff
>
> The National Association of Realtors praised President George W. Bush and
> Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez for their commitment
> to increasing minority homeownership opportunities and pledged its full
> support for the White House minority homeownership initiative announced
> yesterday. Regional Vice President Bob McMillan of Decatur, Ala.,
> represented NAR -- one of about a dozen partners in this public-private
> initiative -- at this morning's announcement ceremony at St. Paul AME
> Church in Atlanta.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_92843512 -----
>
> WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 15, 2002
>
> The National Association of Realtors(R) announced today that it has made a
> pledge to the White House to help meet the President's challenge to
> increase the number of minority homeowners in America by 5.5 million
> before the end of the decade.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031015-10.html For
> Immediate Release
> Office of the Press Secretary
> October 15, 2003
>
> President Calls on Senate to Pass American Dream Downpayment Act Remarks
> by the President on Housing and the Economy
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> For Immediate Release
> Office of the Press Secretary
> December 16, 2003
>
> President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 Remarks by the
> President at Signing of the American Dream Downpayment Act Department of
> Housing and Urban Development Washington, D.C.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5246/is_200403/ai_n19793121 --
> Mortgage Banking, March, 2004 :
> FANNIE MAE HAS ANNOUNCED A PLEDGE to help 6 million families--including
> 1.8 million minority families--become first-time homeowners over the next
> decade. The pledge boosts the company's commitment to President Bush's
> Minority Homeownership Initiative and will help raise the minority
> homeownership rate from 50.6 percent currently to 55 percent, with the
> ultimate goal of closing the gap between minority homeownership rates and
> nonminority homeownership rates.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> But the reason you don't see garbage about the role played by Fannie Mae
> anywhere but on Faux News is that it just isn't newsworthy. It is
> because it is right wing crap that is almost irrelevant.
>
> Yup. Raines is currently a supposed crook that mis-stated the financial
> position of Fannie so as to gain a windfall from bonuses. But that has
> little or nothing to do with any of the _*current*_ problems in the
> economy or even with the current problems at Fannie. The problems at
> Fannie that stem from the "Community Reinvestment act" pale in
> significance to the problems resulting from the "Bush Home Ownership
> Initiative" and the "American Dream Downpayment Act". And those problems
> in turn are minuscule compared to the bubble created by normal middle
> class people attempting to create capital gains by speculating in the
> price of homes. These Republicans have had total control of HUD since
> January of 2001. Bill Clinton is history and if the economy was in
> jeopardy due to a Clinton failure in 1999 or a Carter failure of 1977 they
> had the power and the time to get it fixed. But they didn't get anything
> fixed and instead fanned the flames of speculation. And the Bush home
> ownership initiatives were simply a part of the lying fascist pig
> Republican war party economics of debt.

Now, just watch the Bushbots yell, "It's Clinton's Fault!"

Nor is it just Bush and his administration but every Republican and
Democrat who voted for his programs.

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 6:14 pm
From: Gunner Asch

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:23:38 -0400, Ann <nntpmail@epix.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:11:18 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:28:37 -0400, Ann <nntpmail@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:22:16 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:34:40 -0400, Ann <nntpmail@epix.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:35:32 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:29:32 -0700, "nospam" <a@b.c> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not a single word from Bush or anyone in his administration,
>>>>>>>apologizing for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a
>>>>>>>direct result of their relentless pursuit of deregulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually..the records show that they tried to stiffen up the
>>>>>> regulations both in 2003 and in 2005
>>>>>
>>>>>The records show that the Republicans had control of both the Senate
>>>>>and House through the end of 2004. Bush made the request that Congress
>>>>>give Treasury oversight in 2003.
>>>>>
>>>> Odd..the Democrats control both the House and Senate since 2006. Yet
>>>> they did nothing. So are they to blame?
>>>
>>>Nothing odd about it. Yes, the Democrats are partly at fault. Although,
>>>realistically, a bill passed in 2007 (assuming Bush had signed it) would
>>>have been unlikely to prevent the melt-down. The horse was not only out
>>>of the barn; it was miles away.
>>>
>>><...>
>> You seem to have missed the references to the bills in 2003 and 2005, both
>> blocked by the Demonrats.
>
>Already covered (scroll up).
>
>> Interesting you failed to address those. Ill bet you had a reason
>> however, no?
>
>Already covered (scroll up).
>
>> And snipping the entirety of the rebuttal to the Leftists claim its Bush's
>> and the Republicans fault...really is indicative.
>
>Indicative of its irrelevance. I never made the claim that it was
>entirely "Bush's and the Republicans fault" so there was nothing to rebut.
>
say..Congress has been controlled by Democrats for nearly 2 yrs. So
why havnt they dont anything?

I see Pelosi shit herself just before the big vote today...with her
foot stamping partisan attack speech.

Got exactly what she didnt want, and did deserve, a vote against the
bailout.

Sucks to be her eh?

Gunner

"Obama, raises taxes and kills babies. Sarah Palin - raises babies
and kills taxes." Pyotr Flipivich

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 6:40 pm
From: Jim

Elmo wrote:
>
> Jim wrote:
> > Elmo wrote:
> >> Jitney wrote:
> >>> It is hard to find statistics on the mortgage crisis, so I'm making an
> >>> estimate. There are about 100 million households in the USA, assuming
> >>> 10% are in default or foreclosure, which I think is a high estimate,
> >>> subtracting rentals from the 100 million (if you can refute me from a
> >>> credible authority, I would love to be corrected). Ten million divided
> >>> into 700 billion works out to $700,000 per distressed property, which
> >>> should on the average buy out each property twice. What is happening
> >>> to the rest? I think this is a massive raid on the US treasury, with a
> >>> threat of a Great Depression if we don't pay up, and that isn't even
> >>> counting AIG, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns.
> >>> Wall Street is stealing more than the Huns that raided the Roman
> >>> Empire, with similar results. And this is not the end. Congress forked
> >>> over 25 Billion to the automakers, the airlines are next, and who
> >>> then? Ben and Jerries? We are looking at a new Dark Ages.
> >> You're focusing too narrowly. The problem isn't the mortgages alone,
> >> it's all of the "derivatives" which have been used to "create value"
> >> and "manage risk". Over half of the GDP of the USA comes from counting
> >> each link in the chain as Tom sells something to Dick who turns around
> >> and sells it to Harry who breaks it into pieces and sells shares of it
> >> to Louise and Louise buys a credit default swap from Thelma. It's a
> >> lot like the Dutch tulip mania except that there is precious little
> >> of actual, material value underneath it. And of course almost all of
> >> it has been done with borrowed money -- sometimes as little as 1% of the
> >> "value" being provided in the form of recognizable assets.
> >>
> >> Even those assets are suspect since so much of the concept of "value"
> >> for equity shares has come to be estimated based on declared earnings
> >> which are all too easy to manipulate as the current quarter comes to
> >> a close and the bonus calculations and stock options start to come
> >> out.
> >
> > well put Elmo. sadly though most if not the vast majority
> > have 0% understanding for what you just explained.
> >
> > the real and tangible GDP relates to manufacturing. the country
> > with the in country manufacturing has the wealth. the government
> > of a country with manufacturing has a real and taxable infrastructure
> > allowing that government of said country to collect real and usable
> > revenues.
> >
> > if the workers had simply learned their place in the overall scheme
> > of things and not attempted to exploit those with investment capital
> > then america just might still be the number one country with the most
> > jobs in manufacturing of real and durable goods.
> >
>
> Their _place_? Y'all need to study the history of anthracite mining
> in Pennsylvania. That song "16 Tons" wasn't made up because the workers
> were getting fair treatment by the mine owners.

in the real world the worker gets the crumbs from the day old crackers
left open on the table over night. as long as it remains that way
management is all happy with their position in the overall scheme of
things.

but if the worker bitches and attempts to gain access to a whole
fresh cracker then management reacts with say, something like NAFT...

>
> > but some worker bees got together and attempted to reverse the roles
> > of who exploits who. funny how those with investment capital smiled
> > and waved bye, then simply moved on to a new location were hungry
> > people [worker bees] were eager to be employed / [exploited].
>
> The corporations who did that would have had a much harder time if they
> hadn't bought laws that gave them ridiculous tax breaks for doing so.

to me your choice of the word "bought" reveals you are one with your
eyes wide open and one who understands what they see. when you have
a government of men/flesh/greed then "bought" is exactly how it functions..

best 2U Elmo,
Jim :)

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 6:50 pm
From: Jim

William Souden wrote:

> Rod Speed wrote:
> > Elmo wrote:
> >> Jim wrote:
> >>> Elmo wrote:
> >>>> Jitney wrote:
[....]
> >
> > More bullshit. They had nothing to do with what happened, and the proof
> > of that is that every other modern first and second world country that didnt
> > have those tax breaks also saw their manufacturing exported to China.
> >
>
> Why would you care? Welfare recipient can not be outsourced and tax
> rates do not affect a leech like you.

"Welfare recipient can not be outsourced"
LMAO - while cleaning coffee from my keyboard.

from a memory of long ago. a co-worker once told the
boss, "you can't fire me, slaves have to be sold."

<g>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I'm celebrating because the bailout failed!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/8ad3e712cb6e0e31?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 4:00 pm
From: clams_casino

OhioGuy wrote:

> I just read that politicians were getting more phone calls today
> than ever before regarding the bailout.
>
> Yay - that was me! I made a difference! We basically let our voices be
> heard, and told them if they used our money to pay off the companies
> who caused this whole fiasco, then we would be showing them the door
> in about 5 weeks. Today we saw the Republic working the way it should,
> with representatives REPRESENTING the will of their constituents.
>
> I think the bailout as worded was a rush job that would have done very
> little to alleviate the current situation. We simply need to take a
> month to look things over, get feedback from economists, and craft
> something that makes more sense. Something that might actually WORK
> would probably be a good idea, too.

Hope you get to keep your job. Hope you are >20 years from retirement.
Hope your home mortgage loan doesn't get called.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 1:14 pm
From: OhioGuy

I just read that politicians were getting more phone calls today than
ever before regarding the bailout.

Yay - that was me! I made a difference! We basically let our voices be
heard, and told them if they used our money to pay off the companies who
caused this whole fiasco, then we would be showing them the door in
about 5 weeks. Today we saw the Republic working the way it should, with
representatives REPRESENTING the will of their constituents.

I think the bailout as worded was a rush job that would have done very
little to alleviate the current situation. We simply need to take a
month to look things over, get feedback from economists, and craft
something that makes more sense. Something that might actually WORK
would probably be a good idea, too.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 4:24 pm
From: Vic Smith

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:00:19 -0400, clams_casino
<PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:

>OhioGuy wrote:
>
>> I just read that politicians were getting more phone calls today
>> than ever before regarding the bailout.
>>
>> Yay - that was me! I made a difference! We basically let our voices be
>> heard, and told them if they used our money to pay off the companies
>> who caused this whole fiasco, then we would be showing them the door
>> in about 5 weeks. Today we saw the Republic working the way it should,
>> with representatives REPRESENTING the will of their constituents.
>>
>> I think the bailout as worded was a rush job that would have done very
>> little to alleviate the current situation. We simply need to take a
>> month to look things over, get feedback from economists, and craft
>> something that makes more sense. Something that might actually WORK
>> would probably be a good idea, too.
>
>
>Hope you get to keep your job. Hope you are >20 years from retirement.
>Hope your home mortgage loan doesn't get called.

Scare tactics. Sounds like Paulson, the guy who pulled down a $45
million salary at Goldman Sachs the year he left to work for the guv.
Had to sell his Goldman Sachs stock first though. $500 million.
Now whining for help for his buddies. Fast. Must do right now.
The feds should take their time with this.
Think about it. This mess is caused by increasing debt.
The guv wants to pump in money to keep increasing debt.
They'll just make things worse.

--Vic

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 5:01 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:00:19 -0400, clams_casino
> <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>> OhioGuy wrote:
>>
>>> I just read that politicians were getting more phone calls today
>>> than ever before regarding the bailout.
>>>
>>> Yay - that was me! I made a difference! We basically let our voices
>>> be heard, and told them if they used our money to pay off the
>>> companies who caused this whole fiasco, then we would be showing
>>> them the door in about 5 weeks. Today we saw the Republic working
>>> the way it should, with representatives REPRESENTING the will of
>>> their constituents.
>>>
>>> I think the bailout as worded was a rush job that would have done
>>> very little to alleviate the current situation. We simply need to
>>> take a month to look things over, get feedback from economists, and
>>> craft something that makes more sense. Something that might
>>> actually WORK would probably be a good idea, too.
>>
>>
>> Hope you get to keep your job. Hope you are >20 years from
>> retirement. Hope your home mortgage loan doesn't get called.
>
> Scare tactics. Sounds like Paulson, the guy who pulled down a $45
> million salary at Goldman Sachs the year he left to work for the guv.
> Had to sell his Goldman Sachs stock first though. $500 million.
> Now whining for help for his buddies. Fast. Must do right now.
> The feds should take their time with this.
> Think about it. This mess is caused by increasing debt.

Nope, it was caused by securitizing sub prime loans and giving those
CDOs AAA ratings they didnt come even close to deserving.

> The guv wants to pump in money to keep increasing debt.
> They'll just make things worse.

The debt will increase by a hell of a lot more than that if we end up with another great depression or worse.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 5:19 pm
From: "Dave"

> >
> >
> >Hope you get to keep your job. Hope you are >20 years from retirement.
> >Hope your home mortgage loan doesn't get called.
>
> Scare tactics.

No shit. It pisses me off that someone would use such tactics to try to
defend this corrupt thievery.

> Think about it. This mess is caused by increasing debt.
> The guv wants to pump in money to keep increasing debt.
> They'll just make things worse.

This is the best I've seen the situation summed up, in as few words as
possible. GREAT stuff. It should be tattooed on the forehead of every
fucking moron who actually voted FOR the bailout. -Dave

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 7:06 pm
From: clams_casino

Vic Smith wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:00:19 -0400, clams_casino
><PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>OhioGuy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I just read that politicians were getting more phone calls today
>>>than ever before regarding the bailout.
>>>
>>>Yay - that was me! I made a difference! We basically let our voices be
>>>heard, and told them if they used our money to pay off the companies
>>>who caused this whole fiasco, then we would be showing them the door
>>>in about 5 weeks. Today we saw the Republic working the way it should,
>>>with representatives REPRESENTING the will of their constituents.
>>>
>>>I think the bailout as worded was a rush job that would have done very
>>>little to alleviate the current situation. We simply need to take a
>>>month to look things over, get feedback from economists, and craft
>>>something that makes more sense. Something that might actually WORK
>>>would probably be a good idea, too.
>>>
>>>
>>Hope you get to keep your job. Hope you are >20 years from retirement.
>>Hope your home mortgage loan doesn't get called.
>>
>>
>
>Scare tactics. Sounds like Paulson, the guy who pulled down a $45
>million salary at Goldman Sachs the year he left to work for the guv.
>Had to sell his Goldman Sachs stock first though. $500 million.
>Now whining for help for his buddies. Fast. Must do right now.
>The feds should take their time with this.
>Think about it. This mess is caused by increasing debt.
>The guv wants to pump in money to keep increasing debt.
>They'll just make things worse.
>
>--Vic
>
>

Haven't seen anything yet.

Didn't work for Hoover. Won't work this time either.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Question about a new website called Bailecn
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/fbb64cc5bd1e6f4c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 4:05 pm
From: clams_casino

itsjoannotjoann@webtv.net wrote:

>On Sep 29, 12:50 pm, jan...@aim.com wrote:
>
>
>>On Sep 11, 8:16 pm, chief_thrac...@yahoo.com (Chief Thracian) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:24:33 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Avoid it at all costs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Walk away from the light!
>>>
>>>
>>Why do you say to avoid this site? I've also received an e-mail about
>>this page and am blown away with the pricing but....is it a
>>trustworthy site? Please give a reason for your discounting it!
>>
>>Thanx
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>For those that don't know how to use their computers to research sites
>what you got was a SPAM message. You've heard of spam, haven't you?
>And this is a company from China, so do you think you're going to get
>some super duper technical support or repair when you need it?? Can
>you kiss your money good-bye??
>
>Geez, people never cease to amaze me. And after you buy this
>fantastically low priced piece of junk I've got some lovely ocean
>front property to sell you right outside of Oklahoma City. Great
>breezes right off the water and the deepsea fishing is awesome.
>
>(Shakes head at the gullibility of people that claim to be intelligent
>adults.)
>
>

Did you know the word gullible is not found in any major dictionary or
spell-check program?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 5:03 pm
From: "John James"

clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> itsjoannotjoann@webtv.net wrote:
>
>> On Sep 29, 12:50 pm, jan...@aim.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 11, 8:16 pm, chief_thrac...@yahoo.com (Chief Thracian) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:24:33 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Avoid it at all costs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Walk away from the light!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Why do you say to avoid this site? I've also received an e-mail
>>> about this page and am blown away with the pricing but....is it a
>>> trustworthy site? Please give a reason for your discounting it!
>>>
>>> Thanx
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>> For those that don't know how to use their computers to research
>> sites what you got was a SPAM message. You've heard of spam,
>> haven't you? And this is a company from China, so do you think
>> you're going to get some super duper technical support or repair
>> when you need it?? Can you kiss your money good-bye??
>>
>> Geez, people never cease to amaze me. And after you buy this
>> fantastically low priced piece of junk I've got some lovely ocean
>> front property to sell you right outside of Oklahoma City. Great
>> breezes right off the water and the deepsea fishing is awesome.
>>
>> (Shakes head at the gullibility of people that claim to be
>> intelligent adults.)
>>
>>
>
> Did you know the word gullible is not found in any major dictionary or
> spell-check program?

http://onelook.com/?w=gullible

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How many trillion has the FED already injected?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a9b52a8a6b700372?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 5:36 pm
From: hpope@lycos.com

On Sep 29, 5:04 pm, aeron...@flight.net wrote:
> Just today another $630B....With this kind of injection, and banks
> still not lending, what makes the FED think another $700B will do it?

It just won't work. Look at the 100 billion stimulus package. Let
affected
banks go under.

mitch

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 7:09 pm
From: clams_casino

hpope@lycos.com wrote:

>On Sep 29, 5:04 pm, aeron...@flight.net wrote:
>
>
>>Just today another $630B....With this kind of injection, and banks
>>still not lending, what makes the FED think another $700B will do it?
>>
>>
>
>It just won't work. Look at the 100 billion stimulus package. Let
>affected
>banks go under.
>
>mitch
>
>

Obviously you don't understand the problem or the proposed solution.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Monday, September 29, 2008

26 new messages in 6 topics - digest

No comments: