"Last Christmas Day in Baghdad, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad received a furious phone call from Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi. An American -- drunk, armed, wandering through the Green Zone after a party -- had shot and killed one of his personal bodyguards the night before, Mahdi said. He wanted to see Khalilzad right away." <Hey....c'mon Mahdi....he was celebrating a Christian-HOLIDAY!>

"At the vice president's home, Khalilzad found the slain guard's family assembled. Mahdi demanded the names of the American and his employer. And he wanted the man turned over to the Iraqi government.

After consulting with the embassy's legal officer, Khalilzad identified the shooter as Andrew J. Moonen, an employee of Blackwater USA, the company that provides security for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad. But he would not deliver Moonen himself. Within 36 hours of the shooting, Blackwater and the embassy had shipped him out of the country (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/20/AR2007102001325.html?hpid=topnews)."

*

What a fine-example of Less-Governmental Interference (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ewizardofwhimsy/nolawgonzales.jpg)!! :thumbs:

I see that Blackwater approves of the bill that will try, in the US, of US citizens committing such crimes in war zones.

I saw on Bill Moyers Journal last week, that Eric Prince was saying that he thought Blackwater employees need to be immune from prosecution.

"Allowing The Marketplace To Regulate Itself"

Great idea. It really worked on the Plan D Prescription plan for seniors. When Congress debated whether Medicare should compete for lower prescription prices the argument was competition would keep prices down.

Well it hasn't happened. Prices have gone up 9.2% on average, with seniors reaching the "donut hole" much sooner. Paybacks to the prescription industry are coming back even sooner. Seniors are being penalized by needing medication.

This is the sad state of healthcare in the USA. Children are denied coverage by a heartless president and Congress and seniors find it more expensive to even stay alive.

Allowing the market to "regulate itself" really worked for the subprime mortgage market too, didn't it?

Allowing the market to "regulate itself" really worked for the subprime mortgage market too, didn't it?

And thousands are now have lost and are facing losing their houses.... isn't the free market great? Just like Medicare part D. Only in America.

:hahanot: Allowing the market to "regulate itself" really worked for the subprime mortgage market too, didn't it?

It's working out fine. Speculators are getting smoked. Big financials have taken a huge hit too their bottom line. You guys ought to be loving it.

And thousands are now have lost and are facing losing their houses.... isn't the free market great?

What about the personal responsibility of those who signed those wacked out mortgages? Taking second & third notes on their homes? Going on a sliding scale of interest rather than a fixed rate? Nobody twisted anyone's arms into those - unless it was their significant others & wanting to keep up with that "oh-so-important-image".

Big financials have taken a huge hit too their bottom line.

Nonsense, they got a $300 Billion bailout.

What about the personal responsibility of those who signed those wacked out mortgages?

What about the "personal responsibility" of the victim of a Con?
Same thing.
Those people were taken for a ride by snake-oil salesmen who sold them a pack of lies about being able to refinance out of an ARM.

I see that Blackwater approves of the bill that will try, in the US, of US citizens committing such crimes in war zones.
Gee.....why does that remind me of all-White juries, "judging" people who lynched Blacks, in the Old South? :rolleyes:

I saw on Bill Moyers Journal last week, that Eric Prince was saying that he thought Blackwater employees need to be immune from prosecution.
You really do need to pay more-attention!

*

June 29, 2004

"U.S. contractors working in Iraq will be exempted from the legal processes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13297-2004Jun28.html) of the country's new interim government when they are performing official duties...."

Great idea. It really worked on the Plan D Prescription plan for seniors. When Congress debated whether Medicare should compete for lower prescription prices the argument was competition would keep prices down.
What kind o' 'Merican are you?????

It's DIFFERENT when insurance-companies are the recipients of socialized-medicine (http://the-spark.net/np735202.html)!!!!

*

"The Bush Administration recently announced that premiums paid by senior citizens and the disabled for Medicare-B will increase by 17 per cent, or $11.60 per month. It is the largest premium increase in Medicare's history. It makes the new premium $78.80 per month, or $945 a year.

Part of the increase goes for increases to hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc. But part will go to subsidies to private insurance companies. The subsidies were snuck into the legislation that created the new Medicare drug plan passed last year."

What about the personal responsibility of those who signed those wacked out mortgages? Taking second & third notes on their homes? Going on a sliding scale of interest rather than a fixed rate? Nobody twisted anyone's arms into those - unless it was their significant others & wanting to keep up with that "oh-so-important-image".
Yeah.....I guess all of the mortgage-companies couldn't recall the same way this developed, during Daddy Bush's 1980s-forclosures!!!! :rolleyes:

Nonsense, they got a $300 Billion bailout.

$300 billion? Really. Explain that.

when i look at the news it says.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/15/news/companies/citigroup_earnings/index.htm?section=money_topstories
New York-based Citigroup said its net income fell 57 percent to $2.38 billion, or 47 cents a share, during the third quarter, down from $5.5 billion or $1.10 a share a year earlier.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aUbhXBucGiYw&refer=homeBank of America Corp., the second- largest U.S. bank, plans to cut back investment banking after about $4 billion in trading losses, defaults and writedowns caused third-quarter profit to drop 32 percent, more than analysts estimated.

i can drag up another dozen or so if you like.

$300 billion? Really. Explain that.


Whats to explain? The U.S. government gave $38 Billion (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTEr5WA8crog)to the subprime lenders and hedge fund managers in August alone and according to Bloomberg radio, when you include money from foreign governments, the worldwide total of the bailout has been $300 Billion so far.

Whats to explain? The U.S. government gave $38 Billion (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTEr5WA8crog)to the subprime lenders and hedge fund managers in August alone and according to Bloomberg radio, when you include money from foreign governments, the worldwide total of the bailout has been $300 Billion so far.

Clearly your knowledge of the financial is shall we say 'limited'.

Example 1.

Money lent thru the discount window must be repaid. In other words any money borrowed by the banks at the discount window to shore up the banks balance sheet needs to be repaid to the gov't.

Example 2.

Hedge fund managers can't borrow from the discount window. Only banks can.

Example 3.

Foreign banks didn't 'give' any money to anybody. It too was lent at LIBOR. I'm sure you can tell us what LIBOR is, smart guy like you.

Clearly your knowledge of the financial is shall we say 'limited'.


Quit trying to change the subject.
Are you trying to claim that they were not given a bailout?

:rolleyes:

No one is changing the subject. We're still talking about your inane allegation that the gov't gave money to banks and hedge fund managers. The article you cited does not support the allegation you've made. Your interpretation of the article indicates you have little or no knowledge of how the banking system works.

As to bailouts, since you clearly don't understand financial markets and terms you should define the term as you mean it.

It's working out fine. Speculators are getting smoked. Big financials have taken a huge hit too their bottom line. You guys ought to be loving it.

When Big Finance goes tits-up, its "bottom line" dissolves, and the financial burden to fix what they've broken falls directly on the taxpayers' shoulders.

Whats to explain? The U.S. government gave $38 Billion (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTEr5WA8crog)to the subprime lenders and hedge fund managers in August alone and according to Bloomberg radio, when you include money from foreign governments, the worldwide total of the bailout has been $300 Billion so far.

And that's not the first time taxpayers have had to bail out Big Finance. As recently as 1986, we floated the savings and loan industry $63 billion. I don't take any pleasure from the suggestion that Big Finance has taken a "huge hit too their bottom line." It pisses me off, because I know I'M going to be the one paying for their ignorance and greed... and so are you, and you, and you, and YOU. :mad:

No one is changing the subject. We're still talking about your inane allegation that the gov't gave money to banks and hedge fund managers. The article you cited does not support the allegation you've made. Your interpretation of the article indicates you have little or no knowledge of how the banking system works.

As to bailouts, since you clearly don't understand financial markets and terms you should define the term as you mean it.
Gee.......don't you folks typically respond with YOU HATE THE TROOPS!!!!!....when the need for "tap-dancing" arises? :rolleyes:

Gee.......don't you folks typically respond with YOU HATE THE TROOPS!!!!!....when the need for "tap-dancing" arises? :rolleyes:

Wee Willie Wizard wants to play?

Belly up to the bar son, anything of substance to offer or just more of your tired old rhetoric. Repeating the same old stuff ad nauseum would tire most minds, yet you seem to thrive on it. i'm sure the psycho-analysts would have something to say about that.

Regale us with your brillance, please.

What about the "personal responsibility" of the victim of a Con?
Same thing.
Those people were taken for a ride by snake-oil salesmen who sold them a pack of lies about being able to refinance out of an ARM.
You're so full of shit, it's sickening. We've had this conversation before (at length, actually) and if it didn't make sense to you back way when, then it certainly won't now. In short, you're truly beyond repair. This isn't about "ignorance" anymore; you just don't understand (and are clearly incapable of understanding) any facet of the business world (but then again, who am I to question the intellectual capacity of a former bar bouncer turned financial guru?). That said, what I find to be most egregious is the fact that personal responsibility means nothing to people like you, and because of that alone, I weep for your children. Blue-collar disease is highly contagious, and you are, quite possibly, the most afflicted person I’ve ever talked to. You’ll never be more than a pencil pushing, desk jockey, so enjoy your handouts while they last, stooge.

And that's not the first time taxpayers have had to bail out Big Finance. As recently as 1986, we floated the savings and loan industry $63 billion.

True. Last months bout of corporate welfare included the largest bailout of hedge funds since LTCM.


I don't take any pleasure from the suggestion that Big Finance has taken a "huge hit too their bottom line." It pisses me off, because I know I'M going to be the one paying for their ignorance and greed... and so are you, and you, and you, and YOU. :mad:

It also pisses me off because it attempts to give the false impression that anyone in big finance is actually suffering. When compared to working Americans losing their homes because of fraudulent, deceptive, predatory lending practices, that idea is absurd.

You're so full of shit, it's sickening.

No Prat, you are just hopelessly ignorant, hateful and narrow-minded.
You wouldn't recognize responsibility if it punched you in the face.

:thumbs:
db

Is it the case that drama can't answer the question or is it the case he won't answer the question?

Does Waldo want to have an actual discussion or just argue pointlessly about semantics again?

I'm always up for a discussion. Problem here is that it's not clear that a rational discussion is possible given that your knowledge of the subject has been shown to be 'thin'.

You do have the chance to demonstrate something if you can tell us exactly how your definition of 'bailout' works.

......When compared to working Americans losing their homes because of fraudulent, deceptive, predatory lending practices, that idea is absurd.
Yeah, and I'm the one who's "ignorant" here....:rolleyes:

Show me the lawsuits, dipshit.

You wouldn't recognize responsibility if it punched you in the face.

:thumbs:
db
LOL - I'm the one here who's proactively arguing that people should read a contract before they sign it (fuckin' duuuuh :@@: ) (OR, at least, at a very minimum, have mommy and daddy explain the difference between an ARM and a fixed rate mortgage, which essentially is akin to reading the fine print on a credit card application (a lesson in which most people learn by 20)), pay their bills, take care of their kids, and rely on themselves.

Now you tell me, wiseass, WTF are you preaching, 'cause it sure-as-shit has nothing to do with personal responsibility!? Like every dyed-in-the-wool liberal who champions 'cause' of your party, you, too, have a cup in your hand. You all wanna be "taken care of", and the worst part is, you expect ME to help the unmotivated with a good portion of the 45 percent you take outta my paycheck. Well, fuck you, chump - get a real job, and when you're finally makin' six figures a year, we'll talk. Until then, take a hike - you're not worthy of my time, clock-puncher.

I'm always up for a discussion.

Could have fooled me. You usually are not capable of anything more than pathetic attempts at insults to bolster your fragile ego.


Problem here is that it's not clear that a rational discussion is possible given that your knowledge of the subject has been shown to be 'thin'.

Case in point. You haven't shown any knowledge worth noting about finance whatsoever, especially considering your absurd and laughable claims that the government did not bail out the subprime lenders.


You do have the chance to demonstrate something if you can tell us exactly how your definition of 'bailout' works.

There is this really useful thing called "Google".

You should check it out.

Here is one definition for you to claim is wrong before you can declare your every unsubstantiated fantasy is all superior to every other source of knowledge in the world... as usual. :rolleyes:

Bail out in economics and finance is a term used to describe a situation where a bankrupt or nearly bankrupt entity, such as a corporation or a bank, is given a fresh injection of liquidity, in order to meet its short term obligations. Often bail outs are by governments, or by consortia of investors who demand control over the entity as the price for injecting funds.

Often a bail out is in response to a short term cash flow crunch, where an entity with illiquid, but sufficient, assets is given funds to "tide it over" until short term problems are resolved. However, often bail outs are merely delaying the inevitable, as a government or investment structure attempts to avoid putting a large quantity of illiquid assets on the market, which would force other similar entities to write down their assets.

The bailing out of a corporation by government is controversial because bankruptcy can be seen as being caused by the failure to satisfy consumer demand; the bailing out is thus an instance of government intervention on the market overruling the will of consumers. "All this talk: the state should do this or that, ultimately means: the police should force consumers to behave otherwise than they would behave spontaneously."[1] According to the Austrian School of Economics the appearance of monopolies can often be blamed on such acts of government intervention that preserve overstretched and badly managed corporations which market forces would have broken into smaller and more specialized companies.

:thumbs:
db

Yeah, and I'm the one who's "ignorant" here....

Yes, clearly you are the ignorant one here. Glad you can admit it. :thumbs:


Show me the lawsuits, dipshit.

Here ya go (http://www.nyforeclosureinformation.com/?p=34), O Useless One.

And here. (http://www.naacp.org/get-involved/activism/alerts/110aa-2007-7-11/index.htm)

And here... from today. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/business/23lend.html)

:lolhit:

Could have fooled me. You usually are not capable of anything more than pathetic attempts at insults to bolster your fragile ego.



Case in point. You haven't shown any knowledge worth noting about finance whatsoever, especially considering your absurd and laughable claims that the government did not bail out the subprime lenders.



There is this really useful thing called "Google".

You should check it out.

Here is one definition for you to claim is wrong before you can declare your every unsubstantiated fantasy is all superior to every other source of knowledge in the world... as usual. :rolleyes:



:thumbs:
db

A start. Good.

What evidence would you like to offer that any of the banks were bankrupt or nearly bankrupt?? Here's a hint, look at their capital ratios.

Your definition says that such injections of cash are given in return for control. Would you like to offer any evidence that control has changed in any of these institutios? If the money was given to them either it was free or at a price. Can you name the price?

This will be fun. Like our discussion about "big oil.":)

And thousands are now have lost and are facing losing their houses.... isn't the free market great? ... Only in America.

Are you suggesting that the government is responsible for people taking out mortgages they cannot afford? Wanting to purchase a house is understandable. Wanting to purchase a house you can't afford or wanting to purchase one before you can afford it is understandable. Doing so is not.

or the Economic Doctrine of the late Great Economist
Milton *Freidman whose Monetary Policy plus Consumers deciding
what goods and services they decide upon,was a model of
solid efficiency and Americanism.
Counter that with a Ralph Nader {consumer advocate } approach
of forced Government regulation,thereby driving UP the cost
of goods and sometimes forcing manufacturer's out of business.
I like Ralph Nader for his total authenticity and non-phoniness.
- Free to Choose - was Friedmans TV series in the 80's explaining
how the free market works and udder thingy.
Friedman advocated MINIMIZING the role of Government in a free
market as a means of creating political and social freedom.
I don't knowed what Nader's objective was.
I do know,that even Today,Nader...like... don't even have a drivers
license.Ralph doesn't drive,
I mean,he don't.







* Awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1976 for his acheivements
in the fields of consumption analysis,monetray history and theory,
among other thingy.

Are you suggesting that the government is responsible for people taking out mortgages they cannot afford? Wanting to purchase a house is understandable. Wanting to purchase a house you can't afford or wanting to purchase one before you can afford it is understandable. Doing so is not.

I would normally tend to agree with those who think Government
shouldn't be in the bidness of habitually bailing Americans out.
But it is already rampant.This Generation and each succeeding one
knows less and less of the school of hard knocks and what it means
to have Savings.It was almost unheard of in the post WWII era to
purchase stuff on time and lay away was not too common.
Basically folks saved until they could afford the entire purchase.
But the credit card,came into being and slowly evoporated the
thriftiness of a previous generation of Americans.
In the late 80's Bankrupty started becoming en vogue.
Just decide what Chapter Bankruptcy you wanted to impliment;
say Chapter 11 vs. a chapter 13 or chapter 7 and so forth.
Credit card debt hasn't been too bad,but was starting to unravel
the Economy.The Housing Market is to dependent on the foundation
of entire markerts and those banking institutions that reky on
lending.Plus many Notes weren't even tied to actual homes,but rather
secondary market buyers ability to pool blocks of Mortgages {notes}
and trade on.

What evidence would you like to offer that any of the banks were bankrupt or nearly bankrupt??

Are you trying to contend that they were not in any financial danger from all the foreclosures and the decline in the housing market?
If so then you are saying that they were given billions of taxpayer dollars for no reason at all. That doesn't sound any better.


Your definition says that such injections of cash are given in return for control.

No, it says that happens "often", it does not say that always happens.
I am still trying to figure out if you have a point besides being snarky and argumentative.


This will be fun. Like our discussion about "big oil."

What discussion was that? Your idea of "discussion" is usually just pointless arguing over semantics and then a lot of childish name calling to soothe your pathetically fragile ego.

:thumbs:
db

No, it says that happens "often", it does not say that always happens.
I am still trying to figure out if you have a point besides being snarky and argumentative.



What discussion was that? Your idea of "discussion" is usually just pointless arguing over semantics and then a lot of childish name calling to soothe your pathetically fragile ego.


Now...now...now Little Brown Cow,let's not spoil the debate by spiking
the milk with yer favorite Liquore.
It's too easy a cop-out to souse the merits with spilt milk
and Danny say it ain't so.
Bee a Man.
Come right out and say,you'll give it some thought,right after you
finnish yer Milk and little animal crackers in the Circus train box.

You shouldn't drink so early in the morning Foolio.

:thumbs:
db

Are you trying to contend that they were not in any financial danger from all the foreclosures and the decline in the housing market?

I'm not contending anything. I'm asking you for the proof that they were in danger. People like Merrill, Bear, JPM.....

so then you are saying that they were given billions of taxpayer dollars for no reason at all. That doesn't sound any better.
You keep saying they were given something without providing any proof or naming the cost.



No, it says that happens "often", it does not say that always happens. I am still trying to figure out if you have a point besides being snarky and argumentative.
My point is that you don't know what you're talking about. You don't understand what happened and consequently any prescription you or your ilk offer for remedying the problem will be inappropriate.



What discussion was that? Your idea of "discussion" is usually just pointless arguing over semantics and then a lot of childish name calling to soothe your pathetically fragile ego.

The one were you blamed big oil for fixing the rise in the price of oil. Where you couldn't even name the largest oilcos in the world.

I'm not contending anything.

Then there is no discussion.

Have a nice day!

:thumbs:
db

"Foolio", Dharma??? How old are you, really?

Oh, and to brush up on our discussion earlier, we live in a litigation crazy society, so your "lawsuits" (as I expected, of course) were all bullshit. The only one that's even remotely germane to the conversation we were having was your last link, and even that's thin. It's being championed by your party (which hardly surprises me), and if not to add insult to injury here, it STILL trumpets the "victim" chord when the dumbass in question SIGNED a contract that stipulated the terms.

But hey - do me a favor, will ya? Let me know if the bill passes.

Thanks.

Oh, and to brush up on our discussion earlier, we live in a litigation crazy society, so your "lawsuits" (as I expected, of course) were all bullshit. The only one that's even remotely germane to the conversation we were having was your last link, and even that's thin. It's being championed by your party (which hardly surprises me), and if not to add insult to injury here, it STILL trumpets the "victim" chord when the dumbass in question SIGNED a contract that stipulated the terms.


Prat you are as clueless and irrelevant as you are hateful and bigoted.

But you make me laugh with the absurdity of your posts.

:thumbs:
db

Prat you are as clueless and irrelevant as you are hateful and bigoted.
You know, coming from someone who used to work as a bouncer, that hurts.

You know, coming from someone who used to work as a bouncer, that hurts.

Well, perhaps if you actually got a job someday you could move out of your Mom's basement and get your own place too.

:thumbs:
db

Then there is no discussion.

Have a nice day!

:thumbs:
db

Thought you'd run away, again.

Thought you'd run away, again.

There was nothing to "run away" from.
You said you had no point to make.
End of discussion.

:thumbs:
db

Your allegation is demonstrably false. $300 billion was not given to bailout anyone. When called to defend it you can't. When called to explain it you can't. You're strongest characteristic is your consistent misunderstanding of affairs.