What if socialists designed airplanes...

[Cobra]

The airplane is out of control and the driver that took over is flailing like a SOB the bad landing is imminent and we can only watch as he pushes when he should pull, pull when he should push, power up, power back, power up, power back then the big bang.

I am no Bush backer that is for sure. But I have to say that this marketing driven tactics that this administration is using instead of telling the truth and and making things better for the buisness environment will lead to more of a problem than we already had.

A leader would be nice instead of what we are getting with Nazi Pelosi running the country instead of the executive branch. :crying:

So, giving hundreds of billions of YOUR tax dollars to the business community isn't helping them? What's your definition of "marketing driven tactics"? I have know idea what it is your saying.

 

[JustaNumber]

So, giving hundreds of billions of YOUR tax dollars to the business community isn't helping them? What's your definition of "marketing driven tactics"? I have know idea what it is your saying.

"Giving" isn't the right word. "Taking" is more like it. What the government is doing is choosing who wins and who loses, while removing free market choice. So inefficient and corrupt failing banks will get propped up and smaller, more efficient, honest banks will fail. It will not end well, and the market is predicting as such!

When the government takes money from me and gives it to anyone else, not necessary for the functioning of basic government, it sure doesn't sound like it is following the basic principle of liberty, freedom, and a level playing field.

 

[Wanderlust]

Are you retarded? Do you not understand that the United States has a "socialized" military? Where do you think most aviation technology comes from?

 

[Tristar]

Was a Regan a King or has the GOP molded him into one recently?

No, Regan was the 66th Secratary of the Treasury from 1981-1985, and then White House Chief of Staff from 1985-1987 under Ronald Reagan.

I don't think the GOP has to mold Reagan (assuming that is who you're talking about) into anything - the last time I checked he carried 44 states in 1980, and 49 states in 1984. Heck, Bill Clinton couldn't even get half of the popular vote either time and all the liberals just love that moron.

 

[JustaNumber]

Are you retarded? Do you not understand that the United States has a "socialized" military? Where do you think most aviation technology comes from?

Beam me up, Scotty...

 

[dbrault17]

A leader would be nice instead of what we are getting with Nazi Pelosi running the country instead of the executive branch. :crying:

Ron Paul anyone?

 

[Wanderlust]

Beam me up, Scotty...

Sure, condescension always works when it becomes clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. You need to do some more research on your supply-sider "heroes". And hubris is not a valid argument, despite the sentiments of millions of faithful "dittoheads".

 

[Double Shot]

Sure, condescension always works when it becomes clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.


Pot meet kettle.

 

[Cobra]

I love the phrase, "Your an idiot."
I wish it was "my controls."

Here is an excellent article actually armed with FACTS that I also referred to in another thread, by extremely well-respected economist and author Thomas Sowell. Can't we at least agree on the FACTS of what happened?

Upside Down Economics

By Thomas Sowell

From television specials to newspaper editorials, the media are pushing the idea that current economic problems were caused by the market and that only the government can rescue us.

What was lacking in the housing market, they say, was government regulation of the market's "greed." That makes great moral melodrama, but it turns the facts upside down.

It was precisely government intervention which turned a thriving industry into a basket case.

An economist specializing in financial markets gave a glimpse of the history of housing markets when he said: "Lending money to American homebuyers had been one of the least risky and most profitable businesses a bank could engage in for nearly a century."

That was what the market was like before the government intervened. Like many government interventions, it began small and later grew.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 directed federal regulatory agencies to "encourage" banks and other lending institutions "to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions."

That sounds pretty innocent and, in fact, it had little effect for more than a decade. However, its premise was that bureaucrats and politicians know where loans should go, better than people who are in the business of making loans.

The real potential of that premise became apparent in the 1990s, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) imposed a requirement that mortgage lenders demonstrate with hard data that they were meeting their responsibilities under the Community Reinvestment Act.

What HUD wanted were numbers showing that mortgage loans were being made to low-income and moderate-income people on a scale that HUD expected, even if this required "innovative or flexible" mortgage eligibility standards.

In other words, quotas were imposed— and if some people didn't meet the standards, then the standards need to be changed.

Both HUD and the Department of Justice began bringing lawsuits against mortgage bankers when a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants were turned down for mortgage loans.

A substantial majority of both black and white mortgage loan applicants had their loans approved but a statistical difference was enough to get a bank sued.

It should also be noted that the same statistical sources from which data on blacks and whites were obtained usually contained data on Asian Americans as well. But those data on Asian Americans were almost never mentioned.

Whites were turned down for mortgage loans more often than Asian Americans. But saying that would undermine the reasoning on which the whole moral melodrama and political crusades were based.

Lawsuits were only part of the pressures put on lenders by government officials. Banks and other lenders are overseen by regulatory agencies and must go to those agencies for approval of many business decisions that other businesses make without needing anyone else's approval.

Government regulators refused to approve such decisions when a lender was under investigation for not producing satisfactory statistics on loans to low-income people or minorities.

Under growing pressures from both the Clinton administration and later the George W. Bush administration, banks began to lower their lending standards.

Mortgage loans with no down payment, no income verification and other "creative" financial arrangements abounded. Although this was done under pressures begun in the name of the poor and minorities, people who were neither could also get these mortgage loans.

With mortgage loans widely available to people with questionable prospects of being able to keep up the payments, it was an open invitation to financial disaster.

Those who warned of the dangers had their warnings dismissed. Now, apparently, we need more politicians intervening in more industries, if you believe the politicians and the media.

The irony is this: It's likely that you or someone in your family has or is now benefiting from the 1977 housing act that you scorn. If not directly indirectly.

 

[Cobra]

"Giving" isn't the right word. "Taking" is more like it. What the government is doing is choosing who wins and who loses, while removing free market choice. So inefficient and corrupt failing banks will get propped up and smaller, more efficient, honest banks will fail. It will not end well, and the market is predicting as such!

When the government takes money from me and gives it to anyone else, not necessary for the functioning of basic government, it sure doesn't sound like it is following the basic principle of liberty, freedom, and a level playing field.

Let's see you scorn the new president and congressional tactics as of late? Yet, I'm sure that nowhere in this thread you've mentioned the Bush, Paulson, nor Bernanke factor.

The BIGGEST trouble for these smaller solvent banks as of late isn't exclusive to the government. It's the larger propped-up banks that are buying up smaller banks spreading their toxic debt amongst these acquisitions.