HomeWritersLiterary AgentsEditorsPublishersResourcesDiscussion
Forum Login | Join the discussion
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 104
  1. #11
    Rogue Mutt
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by John Oberon View Post
    Aaah, no, Mutt...the sequester was not a cut. There's NEVER a cut in ANYTHING, just reductions in the rate of growth. And it was Obama's plan anyway. HE'S the one who came up with idea, then tried to pin its implementation on the Republicans.

    The Republicans are hardly "mine". I wish Boener would find a home in the deep blue sea. I'm sick to death with him trying to "compromise" with these third-world socialists who seek to destroy America and freedom and replace it with government run "security". To tell you the truth, I have difficulty telling the difference between Republicans and Democrats nowadays. There's barely a question of bankrupting American; they simply argue about how to do it. Even today, I heard some Republican saying how Obamacare needs some "tweaking". Good grief, that hellish monstrosity needs repealed, abolished, quenched and destroyed, never to rise again, and the sooner the better.

    I am solid Tea Party. I want the over-spending to STOP. NOW. I don't want reductions in the rate of growth, I want ELIMINATION of expenditures. I want to abolish the Department of Education...it's just a giant lobby entity, and even school kids know the appropriate term for when a national government attempts to "educate" the populace. I want the Department of Energy to go away...the whole purpose of its existence is "to reduce our dependence on foreign oil", and it's failed utterly and miserably...heck, just the fact Jimmy Carter started it should be reason enough dismantle it. I want to role back government financial responsibility to constitutional mandates and nothing else.

    There is nothing wrong with America or its economy that a double-dose of freedom wouldn't heal double-quick.
    LOL. We saw how well "freedom" did with the second Bush administration. Here's a hint: it ended up with billions in bailouts to companies who used "freedom" to screw everyone.



  2. #12
    Senior Member John Oberon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    3,063
    Uuuhh...hmm...you have odd ideas of freedom. See, my idea is to keep as much money as possible AWAY from the government and in the hands of those who earn it, so the government can't provide any of these unconstitutional bailouts. The more money you keep, the more freedom you have, the less money you keep, the more you're enslaved to the government. Sounds like common sense to me, but maybe not to you.

    Were you under the impression that I LIKED Bush? He didn't exactly wear out his veto pen, did he? I thought his spending was horrendous...that is until Obama TRIPLED it.

    By the way, did you somehow miss the runup to the recession? Did you somehow miss all those hearings about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Did you miss how liberals forced banks to lend to minority groups else suffer unending lawsuits because of "discrimination"? Do you know the percentage of those failed loans that were minority loans? It was WAY high.

    It's not difficult to see, Mutt. Tell me one bank that would intentionally lend to someone they KNEW had no ability to pay back. Yet it happened thousands of times with Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, and all the other greedy liberal "do-gooders" heading up these lending institutions. Why they are not in jail is beyond me. It was not freedom that caused the recession or the bailouts. It was liberal greed and idiocy. Conservatives were first on the line to say, "Let those companies fail! They mismanaged their money and made bad decisions - they need to fail." But no, liberals like Bush and Obama said, "Don't worry! We'll REWARD your failure. The government will take care of you. You're incompetent and stupid...you NEED the government to take care of you." Then we have private companies OWNED by the government. Gee, no conflict of interest there, right?

    I tell you, the sooner we get this third world Indonesian socialist and his band of communist savages out of the White House, the sooner we can start to heal and return to freedom and some sense of sanity.

  3. #13
    Rogue Mutt
    Guest
    Yeah see the problem is we gave the big banks all the "freedom" they wanted and they ran wild until the economy was set to collapse and they had to beg the government to clean up their mess.

    Ha, Bush is a liberal now. I love how you guys rewrite history. Anyway, you should stop this before the moderator shuts it down.

  4. #14
    Senior Member John Oberon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    3,063
    I didn't re-write anything. We didn't give banks freedom. We regulated them to the point that the felt they had to give bad loans to avoid prosecution for "discrimination". Add to this the bonuses these rotten liberals "earned" for closing so many loans. It angers me to no end.

    I always thought Bush was a liberal, as was his father. The only ways in which he was not a liberal were these: he protected the country and respected the military, he respected the sanctity of life, and he gave us a measily tax cut. I can't recall anything else he did that wouldn't delight liberals. His father was the same, except he RAISED taxes.

    No biggie. Just yacking. No insults or anything. Good discussion in my view, just not about writing.

  5. #15
    Rogue Mutt
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by John Oberon View Post
    I didn't re-write anything. We didn't give banks freedom. We regulated them to the point that the felt they had to give bad loans to avoid prosecution for "discrimination". Add to this the bonuses these rotten liberals "earned" for closing so many loans. It angers me to no end.

    I always thought Bush was a liberal, as was his father. The only ways in which he was not a liberal were these: he protected the country and respected the military, he respected the sanctity of life, and he gave us a measily tax cut. I can't recall anything else he did that wouldn't delight liberals. His father was the same, except he RAISED taxes.

    No biggie. Just yacking. No insults or anything. Good discussion in my view, just not about writing.
    OMG, banks were forced into giving bad loans. Hilarious. It wasn't because they were making money off those loans or anything. Nope, Bush and his cronies had a gun to their heads and made them do it. LOL. You should take this act on the road. Warm up the crowds for the next Palin rally.

  6. #16
    Senior Member John Oberon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    3,063
    Mutt, would you like to explain to me how a bank makes money off a bad loan? They LOSE money. BIG time. That's why they try to avoid making bad loans. They make money off interest on good loans. If the loan goes bad, they lose not only the interest, but incur the expense of foreclosure. Banks HATE foreclosure and will do just about anything to avoid it.

    Now what you want me to believe is that all these banks went directly against what they KNEW (for literally millennia) to be good banking practice, what they KNEW would put them out of business, what in fact DID put many of them out of business, because they thought they could make a lot of money that way.

    I'll take the show on the road if you stand next to me.

  7. #17
    Senior Member John Oberon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    3,063
    Ooo...clashing meaning in that second paragraph. Correction:

    Now what you want me to believe is that all these banks went directly against what they KNEW (for literally millennia) to be good banking practice, that they embraced what they KNEW would put them out of business, what in fact DID put many of them out of business, because they thought they could make a lot of money that way.

    Writing too fast...it's a weakness of mine.

  8. #18
    Rogue Mutt
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by John Oberon View Post
    Mutt, would you like to explain to me how a bank makes money off a bad loan? They LOSE money. BIG time. That's why they try to avoid making bad loans. They make money off interest on good loans. If the loan goes bad, they lose not only the interest, but incur the expense of foreclosure. Banks HATE foreclosure and will do just about anything to avoid it.

    Now what you want me to believe is that all these banks went directly against what they KNEW (for literally millennia) to be good banking practice, what they KNEW would put them out of business, what in fact DID put many of them out of business, because they thought they could make a lot of money that way.

    I'll take the show on the road if you stand next to me.
    I think we've already seen the evidence of that. They got to have their cake and eat it too. They got the interest from the loans while they were being paid and then got the government to pick up the tab for most of the foreclosures. And by then a lot of those in charge were already sailing away on their golden parachutes. Can you really sit there and type with a straight face that the banking industry isn't greedy and short-sighted?

  9. #19
    Senior Member John Oberon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    3,063
    Based on all those Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hearings? That's a huge YES. Barney Frank and all that bunch are nothing but a bunch of gangsters. I read of them leaving the situation with piles of money. I read of the banks going out of business. Maybe the banks are greedy and short-sighted, but they sure didn't profit like those ciminals. The industry got hammered.

    Your little dream scenario does not work unless the banks were assured ahead of time of a bailout from the government, particularly Obama, who tripled the bailouts. So what you want me to believe (even more fantastic) is that the banks came up with this illegal ciminal mastermind plan, then went to Bush (and Congress, presumably behind closed doors) and said, "Hey, we want to make thousands of bad loans! We know normally that would be a fiscal death sentence, but we figure if you bail us out and screw the taxpayers, we'll make billions. Are you in?" Then Bush (and Congress) said, "You bet!", so they implemented The Plan. But ooops...Obama and a new Congress gets elected. Now they have to convince THEM to be as corrupt as Bush. Luckily, he and the new Congress were Democrats and happened to be three times as rotten. Phew! Bullet dodged.

    Is that really what you want me to believe?

  10. #20
    Senior Member John Oberon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    3,063
    Mutt, people don't go against common sense, against age-old wisdom, proven for millennia, unless one of two situations exist: 1) They are forced to do it, or 2) they believe they can profit and get away with it.

    In order for them to be forced to do it, the government must say to them, "Hey, it's not fair these poor people can't get the houses they want. You better start loaning to them what they want, or we're going to sue you out of existence, got that?" They do it to avoid the lawsuits, then start selling the bad loans back and forth, and wait to see who gets caught with the hot potato.

    In order for them to get away with it, they need to convince all of two Congresses and two Presidents to act in collusion with the lone goal of enriching the banks, or they're toast. The banks are successful, and amazingly, manage to rake in billions while at the same time, hundreds of banks fail.

    Now I ask you, which scenario sounds more believable? It's not even close.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts