Financial Reform???

what did you mean by that? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Yeah , Juan.... I think I'm gonna need a little explanation on that one too!

Giz Originally Posted by MrGiz

I understood his comment and without trying to speak for my fellow brethren, I'll try to put my own li'l spin on it......The federal gov't has always used money to get lower entities to do what they want them to do.....For instance, they get the states to adopt national speed limits, or get them to set DUI/DWI laws at whatever level they want it set at by telling them if they want appropriations (i.e., many millions of dollars for something like maybe funding education, or maybe road repairwork), then they'll do as I say do.....The gov't has the Constitutional right to collect your tax dollars, but there is nothing in the Constitution that tells them how they must spend it (or lend it) so they can put any kinds of conditions on you (or the states) getting the loan that they want to put on them and there's really nothing any of us can do except continue to purchase KY for the screwing that we all feel we're getting.....And when you really think about it, I guess there's really no point in my saying it's unfair for them to bailout the banks and not bailout the little people because it's really up to the gov't on how (or who) they make their loans to, and I guess as long as their not doing it using un-Constitutional reasons (making decisions based on race, gender, ethnicity, and all those other things that the Supreme Court says is a no-no), then no such thing as being fair or unfair.....Sux being the little guy.....

Like they used to say about Reaganomics (the ‘Trickle Down Theory’): Take care of the big guys and the largesse will trickle down to the little guys, but as a little guy, I sure am tired of being trickled on. lol

Still not sure about Juan's analogy....but what you're saying is.... we're in for at least a four year dry, sandy, fuckin'...... right? (Little bit less so, when we kick as many Congressional incumbents to the curb (and continue paying for them for the rest of their lives) as possible in November.... including B.O.)

Like they used to say about Reaganomics (the ‘Trickle Down Theory’): Take care of the big guys and the largesse will trickle down to the little guys, but as a little guy, I sure am tired of being trickled on. lol Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wasn't that Bushanomics that touted the "Trickle Down Theory" which I always laughed at since I can't ever recall at any time in the history of mankind has giving tons of money to a few people ever worked for stimulating an economy.....Giving them money generally gives them the opportunity to live in their comfy homes, sit in their plush leather chairs, sipping on the finest cognac, while smoking a stogie.....The only thing that ever trickles down is manure that hits the little people below the fat hogs.....

B.O. opened up his mouth and mistakenly let out some truth today, when he said.... I am para-phrasing.... "I believe there is a point where you've made enough" WTF kind of comment is THAT ??????

See my response below.....

Still not sure about Juan's analogy....but what you're saying is.... we're in for at least a four year dry, sandy, fuckin'...... right? (Little bit less so, when we kick as many Congressional incumbents to the curb (and continue paying for them for the rest of their lives) as possible in November.... including B.O.) Originally Posted by MrGiz

regarding Big C's point with the bank bailout and "strings attached"

I think Juan maybe saying that since the govt. loaned the money, the loan has strings attached and that business that accept the money has to dance to the govt. tune. so, from what I gather, govt. can set parameters on salary caps and bonus which btw, seems to have more of a potent umbrage by left wing groups.

only silver lining in all this, is Ford Motor Corp. avoided all this crap. I don't like Ford Motor Corp tho, but they weren't stupid like GM and the banks were.

Wasn't that Bushanomics that touted the "Trickle Down Theory" which I always laughed at since I can't ever recall at any time in the history of mankind has giving tons of money to a few people ever worked for stimulating an economy.....Giving them money generally gives them the opportunity to live in their comfy homes, sit in their plush leather chairs, sipping on the finest cognac, while smoking a stogie.....The only thing that ever trickles down is manure that hits the little people below the fat hogs..... Originally Posted by BIG C

no, it wasn't called trickle down theory, but what it was actually called was the "supply side" theory, the trickle down was part of the explanation of the theory.

it was not bushanomics, that bush used. It was Voodoo-nomics which Bush used to attack Reagans' supply side theory.

however, the results of the supply side theory was mixed. The effect was more like swiss cheese. some sectors profited where other sectors didn't.

I understood his comment and without trying to speak for my fellow brethren, I'll try to put my own li'l spin on it......The federal gov't has always used money to get lower entities to do what they want them to do.....For instance, they get the states to adopt national speed limits, or get them to set DUI/DWI laws at whatever level they want it set at by telling them if they want appropriations (i.e., many millions of dollars for something like maybe funding education, or maybe road repairwork), then they'll do as I say do.....The gov't has the Constitutional right to collect your tax dollars, but there is nothing in the Constitution that tells them how they must spend it (or lend it) so they can put any kinds of conditions on you (or the states) getting the loan that they want to put on them and there's really nothing any of us can do except continue to purchase KY for the screwing that we all feel we're getting.....And when you really think about it, I guess there's really no point in my saying it's unfair for them to bailout the banks and not bailout the little people because it's really up to the gov't on how (or who) they make their loans to, and I guess as long as their not doing it using un-Constitutional reasons (making decisions based on race, gender, ethnicity, and all those other things that the Supreme Court says is a no-no), then no such thing as being fair or unfair.....Sux being the little guy..... Originally Posted by BIG C

Sorry C.... you're gonna have to do better than that!

A mortgage loan is a "loan" for a tangible piece of property which one hopes to acquire. The government bank bailouts are a reward for poor performance, using OUR money!! The analogy is flawed from the start! Not even close!!

Sorry C.... you're gonna have to do better than that!

A mortgage loan is a "loan" for a tangible piece of property which one hopes to acquire. The government bank bailouts are a reward for poor performance, using OUR money!! The analogy is flawed from the start! Not even close!! Originally Posted by MrGiz

Nevertheless, it is a loan, and the lender has the right & power to say, "If you want my money, here are the rules." In this case the big mistake, in my opinion, was Bush's people not making enough rules for the first bailout loans.

If you don't like the rules, don't take the $$$, like Ford.

No doubt the Dutch boy thought it was terribly inconvenient to stand through the cold night with his finger in the dike (that’s ‘D-I-K-E’ not ‘D-Y-K-E’ lol) to save his family, friends and countrymen, but it had to be done or all would suffer the consequences. Very few in this country could afford the economic consequences of a collapsed financial system. Giz, don’t look at it as a ‘reward’, but see it instead as a large bandage—thinking so helps me sleep better at night. Stock holders should vote those ‘gamblers’ (they are not investment bankers) out, but I doubt they will do it.

Sorry C.... you're gonna have to do better than that!

A mortgage loan is a "loan" for a tangible piece of property which one hopes to acquire. The government bank bailouts are a reward for poor performance, using OUR money!! The analogy is flawed from the start! Not even close!! Originally Posted by MrGiz

Not sure why you didn't get it because as I stated, the gov't is using tax money to make loans and they have the right to put any conditions that they want to put on receiving the loan.....The bank bailouts are loans to the banks (and the bank execs) supposedly as a way to help stimulate the economy.....They give the loans and tell them the rules for getting the loans.....I stated that the Constitution says they can collect taxes, but the Constitution doesn't restrict them in any way on what they do with the tax dollars that they collect.....How is that analogy flawed and not even close in your opinion.....Explain please.....

.... If you don't like the rules, don't take the $$$, like Ford. Originally Posted by juan2fork

#1 - I don't buy into the "too big to fail" bullshit!

No.... I don't like the rules which are changed late in the game.... I don't need or want anyone else's money , like Ford!
My bank has always been quite healthy!

Big C.... I get the so called "loan" reference..... but after the bank loans are paid back.... what is there to show for it?

Giz

Its called hypocrisy. The banks are to blame fo giving loans to people who couldnt afford it, but now they are going to be forced to give loans to people that cant afford it. It makes perfect sense to me. Obama is not a capitalist. We are redistributing the wealth and strong arming the banks, and yes the middle class is penalized. You are indeed getting fucked, and not the way you liek Big C!!!

Big C.... I get the so called "loan" reference..... but after the bank loans are paid back.... what is there to show for it?

Giz Originally Posted by MrGiz

Assuming they actually do pay back the loans, THAT'S THE F'ING $64m QUESTION.....I've tried to make the point earlier in this thread when I state that lending million$ to a few in hopes that those few will use those million$ to help stimulate a slumping economy has NEVER, EVER before and I just don't see that bailing out the banks will work this time either.....History has always shown that giving money to the fortunate few who don't really need it just allows those fortunate few to continue to prosper, while the majority continues to struggle.....Rich people rarely ever want to share the wealth.....So usually there's absolutely nothing to show for it.....

Look, I'm a huge critic of this bank bailout.....I was a huge critic of the automobile bailout.....And I will continue to be a huge critic of policy that says "throw lots of money at rich people (whether it be a loan or grant) but tell the little guy who really needs the money that they don't qualify (or one of my favorite lines is telling them that they have a history of making bad business decisions).....If this bank bailout shit works, then I'll be the first one to give praise where it's due.....The jury is still out on the automobile industry bailout so I can't give any praise or any criticism to it (beyond what I've already done).....I'll just repeat, the process has never worked before and I don't see any reason to think that it will work now.....Guess we'll just wait n see since it's gonna happen regardless of what we say here.....

I maintain the motives have become to nationalize these industries and change our economy. Not the stated agenda. I know a lot of liberal activists from Yale and other places, and yes, they do believe that extreme socialism is desirable.