Virtual Private Server (VPS) Hosting provided by Central Point Networking cpnllc.com
For some reason, the "Nodelist" and "Recent Callers" features are not working.
| Sysop: | Ray Quinn |
|---|---|
| Location: | Visalia, CA |
| Users: | 60 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 03:56:54 |
| Calls: | 12 |
| Files: | 12,929 |
| Messages: | 98,349 |
Check out the US 99 menu above for links to information about US Highway 99, after which the US 99 BBS is named.
Be sure to click on the Amateur Radio menu item above for packet BBSes, packet software, packet organizations, as well as packet how-to's. Also included is links to local and some not-so-local Amateur Radio Clubs.
ED HULETT wrote to WAYNE CHIRNSIDE <=-
On 04/23/2010 06:27 PM, WAYNE CHIRNSIDE -> ALL wrote:
Well well, it seems General Motors has paid back ALL
it's TARP funds with interest and 5 years early at that
so the U.S. taxpayer no longer owns GM as was
recently maintained here.
Another bit of good news.
Only a year ago the TARP bailouts were project to cost
500 Billion, now the projected figure is 87 billion
with most of that accounted for by Freddie and Fannie.
Ahem, GM used the TARP money that was put in an escrow account to "pay back" the smaller amount that was called a loan. So, basically, all
they did was take taxpayer money to pay back taxpayer money. Plus, the
US government is still 60% owner of GM with the Canadian government
being a 12% owner. GM says they plan to fix that by issuing an IPO and
go public... again... as if 72% government ownership isn't already
public.
Fannie and Freddie are the quasi government agencies that were at the center of the housing bubble collapse.
ROSS SAUER wrote to WAYNE CHIRNSIDE <=-
"WAYNE CHIRNSIDE -> ALL" <1:123/140> wrote in
news:29955$POL_INC@JamNNTPd:
Well well, it seems General Motors has paid back ALL
it's TARP funds with interest and 5 years early at that
so the U.S. taxpayer no longer owns GM as was
recently maintained here.
Another bit of good news.
Only a year ago the TARP bailouts were project to cost
500 Billion, now the projected figure is 87 billion
with most of that accounted for by Freddie and Fannie.
Also Obama's "socialism" has driven the Dow into a *REALLY* steep decl...err...the Dow has hit 11,000 now for the first time in 5 years.
The Teabaggers are whinign about raising taxes, when their *OWN* taxes have decreased.
But the rich right-wing media blatherers like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn
Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Sarah the Quitter, etc, their taxes have increased, due to all the cash they pull in.
And that's TREASON! (sarcasm off)
General Motors has paid
JOHN MASSEY wrote to WAYNE CHIRNSIDE <=-
On 4/23/2010 9:27 PM, WAYNE CHIRNSIDE -> ALL wrote:
General Motors has paid
General Motors is running ads on all the major networks this week
claiming it has repaid its bailout from the taxpayers "in full." But
the claim isn't standing up to scrutiny from lawmakers and government watchdogs who have found that the automaker was able to repay the
bailout money only by dipping into a separate pot of bailout funds.
That's like saying a welfare receiver paying taxes using a welfare
check.
decl...err...the Dow has hit 11,000 now for the first time in 5 years.
ED HULETT wrote to WAYNE CHIRNSIDE <=-
On 04/23/2010 06:27 PM, WAYNE CHIRNSIDE -> ALL wrote:
Well well, it seems General Motors has paid back ALL
it's TARP funds with interest and 5 years early at that
so the U.S. taxpayer no longer owns GM as was
recently maintained here.
Another bit of good news.
Only a year ago the TARP bailouts were project to cost
500 Billion, now the projected figure is 87 billion
with most of that accounted for by Freddie and Fannie.
Ahem, GM used the TARP money that was put in an escrow account to "pay
back" the smaller amount that was called a loan. So, basically, all
they did was take taxpayer money to pay back taxpayer money. Plus, the
US government is still 60% owner of GM with the Canadian government
being a 12% owner. GM says they plan to fix that by issuing an IPO and
go public... again... as if 72% government ownership isn't already
public.
Fannie and Freddie are the quasi government agencies that were at the
center of the housing bubble collapse.
Nope, that's the propaganda now being sold.
Freddie and Fannie were the result of bad derivative packages sold to investors.
Fannie and Freddie were thus a result of Wall Streets misbehavior and irresponsibility
as in the Abacus Investments derivative packages now in the news sold by various investment
firms such as Goldman Sachs.
Then Goldman Sachs and other investment firms shorted the very Abacus Investment
accounts they'd promoted to their clients betting against the very investments
they had promoted.
Since those deriviative investment packages largely consisted of sub-prime loans of course when their lack of any value it impacted Fannie andFreddie
Large banking institutions engaged in speculation with investors monies
in derivatives is the cause.
Bill Clinton is partially to blame while the Republican Congressman from Texas who first proposed the repeal of the Glass Steagall act is dead center
to blame.
Bill Clinton could have vetoed the repeal of Glass Steagall but his financial
advisors
advised him they would be good for the economy, he's recently come out and admitted
his mistake.
BTW The Glass Steagall Act was first enacted after the Great Depression to prevent
PRECISELY this sort of irresponsible lending by banking institutions.
It took a mere eight years after the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act repeal for the house of cards to come crashing down.
Actually only two years as the first down was Enron then WorldCom
which should have alerted to these bad practices as these were precisely the sort of speculative packages sold as derivatives.
IOW's both the Great Depression AND the current massive recession had almost identical causes.
The Great Depression was caused by buying on margin and the current recession
by speculation on derivative packages engaged in by large banking at up
to 32 to 1 margin.
Just as the current recession hit investment banking was gambling with derivative packages of dubious value at the margin of 30 - 1 actual dollars, banking dollars, like those kept in checking anbd savings accounts.
It's rather easy to gamble with other peoples monies for short term huge personal
financial gain.
The current "fix" proposed by Democrats is to reduce the magin from 32 - 1 to 10 to 1 and to limit the size to which large banks can grow.
This amounts to a reinstatement of a rather watered down version of the Glass
Steagall Act that had been rather effective in preventing such enormous financial meltdowns since the 1930's.
The banks after the repeal of Glass Steagall rolled themselves into investment
firms buying on margin just like individual investors in 1929 and just
as in
1929 this came back and bit the American economy in the a**.
They did? Where did you get that information?
BTW, you might want to
contact the SEC with that to help their case against GS.
ROSS CASSELL wrote to ROSS SAUER <=-
Hello Ross!
23 Apr 10 23:46, you wrote to WAYNE CHIRNSIDE:
decl...err...the Dow has hit 11,000 now for the first time in 5 years.
The DOW hit higher peaks during so and so's administration, which didnt impress your Democrats..
Why would it impress you now, oops thats right, partisanship.
The DOW hit higher peaks during so and so's administration, which
didnt impress your Democrats..
Because that peak was caused by the merging of banks with investment groups and derivatives, AND under so and so's administration the
economy CRASHED and BURNED due to the repeal of Glass Steagall
introduced to Congress by a Republican Congressman from Texas.
ED HULETT wrote to WAYNE CHIRNSIDE <=-
On 04/24/2010 02:50 AM, WAYNE CHIRNSIDE -> ED HULETT wrote:
ED HULETT wrote to WAYNE CHIRNSIDE <=-
On 04/23/2010 06:27 PM, WAYNE CHIRNSIDE -> ALL wrote:
Well well, it seems General Motors has paid back ALL
it's TARP funds with interest and 5 years early at that
so the U.S. taxpayer no longer owns GM as was
recently maintained here.
Another bit of good news.
Only a year ago the TARP bailouts were project to cost
500 Billion, now the projected figure is 87 billion
with most of that accounted for by Freddie and Fannie.
Ahem, GM used the TARP money that was put in an escrow account to "pay
back" the smaller amount that was called a loan. So, basically, all
they did was take taxpayer money to pay back taxpayer money. Plus, the
US government is still 60% owner of GM with the Canadian government
being a 12% owner. GM says they plan to fix that by issuing an IPO and
go public... again... as if 72% government ownership isn't already
public.
Fannie and Freddie are the quasi government agencies that were at the
center of the housing bubble collapse.
Nope, that's the propaganda now being sold.
Sold by whom?
Freddie and Fannie were the result of bad derivative packages sold to investors.
Look up derivatives. You will find that you are arguing semantics.
Fannie and Freddie were thus a result of Wall Streets misbehavior and irresponsibility
as in the Abacus Investments derivative packages now in the news sold by various investment
firms such as Goldman Sachs.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
Just keep on believing that.
Then Goldman Sachs and other investment firms shorted the very Abacus Investment
accounts they'd promoted to their clients betting against the very investments
they had promoted.
They did? Where did you get that information? BTW, you might want to contact the SEC with that to help their case against GS.
Since those deriviative investment packages largely consisted of sub-prime loans of course when their lack of any value it impacted Fannie and
Freddie
Uh, it was federal law which mandated that investment banks take on sub-prime loans with Fannie and Freddie being formed by the federal government to buy those loans as part of that law to help investment
banks stay solvent.
Large banking institutions engaged in speculation with investors monies
in derivatives is the cause.
It was federal law that forced them into that practice. The "Community Reinvestment Act" to be precise.
Bill Clinton is partially to blame while the Republican Congressman from Texas who first proposed the repeal of the Glass Steagall act is dead center
to blame.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
You parrot left-wing talking points well.
Bill Clinton could have vetoed the repeal of Glass Steagall but his financial
advisors
advised him they would be good for the economy, he's recently come out and admitted
his mistake.
Poor Slick, he was a victim of the bad old Republicans and poor advice.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
BTW The Glass Steagall Act was first enacted after the Great Depression to prevent
PRECISELY this sort of irresponsible lending by banking institutions.
Do you even know what Glass Steagall is about?
It took a mere eight years after the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act
for the house of cards to come crashing down.
Glass Steagall has nothing to do with sub-prime loans.
Actually only two years as the first down was Enron then WorldCom
which should have alerted to these bad practices as these were precisely the sort of speculative packages sold as derivatives.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
IOW's both the Great Depression AND the current massive recession had almost identical causes.
Yes, too much government meddling.
The Great Depression was caused by buying on margin and the current recession
by speculation on derivative packages engaged in by large banking at up
to 32 to 1 margin.
Total bunk.
Just as the current recession hit investment banking was gambling with derivative packages of dubious value at the margin of 30 - 1 actual dollars, banking dollars, like those kept in checking anbd savings accounts.
Who was supposed to lose WRT government mandated sub-prime loans? Were
the banks just supposed to eat their losses when the borrowers were
unable to pay their loan payments? It was federal law, CRA again, that mandated banks give loans to people who had no real means to pay those loans so the federal government could "right a wrong" where there was none. Fannie, and then Freddie was set up to take on those toxic loans
in an attempt to keep the banks from going bankrupt.
It's rather easy to gamble with other peoples monies for short term huge personal
financial gain.
Do you even have a clue what a sub-prime loan is and why banks were selling them to Fannie and Freddie? It wasn't for "short term huge personal financial gain."
The current "fix" proposed by Democrats is to reduce the magin from 32 - 1 to 10 to 1 and to limit the size to which large banks can grow.
Oh yeah, limit freedom. That's always how Democrats think.
This amounts to a reinstatement of a rather watered down version of the Glass
Steagall Act that had been rather effective in preventing such enormous financial meltdowns since the 1930's.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
The banks after the repeal of Glass Steagall rolled themselves into investment
firms buying on margin just like individual investors in 1929 and just
as in
1929 this came back and bit the American economy in the a**.
You parrot the propaganda well.
ROSS CASSELL wrote to ED HULETT <=-
Hello Ed!
24 Apr 10 14:27, you wrote to WAYNE CHIRNSIDE:
They did? Where did you get that information?
Checked and triple-checked on 45 and 1/3 blogs, cross-checked with the
BBC and Al-Jazerra, the dialectical critical thinking is employed, followed by a cup of coffee?
BTW, you might want to
contact the SEC with that to help their case against GS.
Do we want to have Wayne surfing for porn?
They did? Where did you get that information?
Checked and triple-checked on 45 and 1/3 blogs, cross-checked
with the BBC and Al-Jazerra, the dialectical critical thinking is
employed, followed by a cup of coffee?
BTW, you might want to
contact the SEC with that to help their case against GS.
Do we want to have Wayne surfing for porn?
Uh Ross, lets have no more unfounded and incorrect speculations OK?
ROSS CASSELL wrote to WAYNE CHIRNSIDE <=-
Hello WAYNE!
24 Apr 10 18:33, you wrote to me:
The DOW hit higher peaks during so and so's administration, which
didnt impress your Democrats..
Because that peak was caused by the merging of banks with investment groups and derivatives, AND under so and so's administration the
economy CRASHED and BURNED due to the repeal of Glass Steagall
introduced to Congress by a Republican Congressman from Texas.
These peaks were achieved well before the meltdowns and the poopoo'ing being done about those peaks were done only for partisan reasons..
Same exact scenarios under a Gore or Kerry, and they would have been singing, look at this prosperity.
ED HULETT wrote to WAYNE CHIRNSIDE <=-
On 04/24/2010 02:50 AM, WAYNE CHIRNSIDE -> ED HULETT wrote:
ED HULETT wrote to WAYNE CHIRNSIDE <=-
On 04/23/2010 06:27 PM, WAYNE CHIRNSIDE -> ALL wrote:
Well well, it seems General Motors has paid back ALL
it's TARP funds with interest and 5 years early at that
so the U.S. taxpayer no longer owns GM as was
recently maintained here.
Another bit of good news.
Only a year ago the TARP bailouts were project to cost
500 Billion, now the projected figure is 87 billion
with most of that accounted for by Freddie and Fannie.
Ahem, GM used the TARP money that was put in an escrow account to "pay
back" the smaller amount that was called a loan. So, basically, all
they did was take taxpayer money to pay back taxpayer money. Plus, the
US government is still 60% owner of GM with the Canadian government
being a 12% owner. GM says they plan to fix that by issuing an IPO and
go public... again... as if 72% government ownership isn't already
public.
Fannie and Freddie are the quasi government agencies that were at the
center of the housing bubble collapse.
Nope, that's the propaganda now being sold.
Sold by whom?
Freddie and Fannie were the result of bad derivative packages sold to
investors.
Look up derivatives. You will find that you are arguing semantics.
Fannie and Freddie were thus a result of Wall Streets misbehavior andsold by
irresponsibility
as in the Abacus Investments derivative packages now in the news
various investment
firms such as Goldman Sachs.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
What a convincing rebuttal.
Just keep on believing that.
Then Goldman Sachs and other investment firms shorted the very Abacus
Investment
accounts they'd promoted to their clients betting against the very
investments
they had promoted.
They did? Where did you get that information? BTW, you might want to
contact the SEC with that to help their case against GS.
Uh they've enough problems to contend with dealing with their people downloading porn rather than keeping an eye on the economic sector on
Wall Street.
They couldn't even be bothered to look into charges about Bernard Madoff despite YEARS of being told it was a ponsie scheme, during the last administration BTW.
Since those deriviative investment packages largely consisted ofsub-prime
loans of course when their lack of any value it impacted Fannie and
Freddie
Uh, it was federal law which mandated that investment banks take on
sub-prime loans with Fannie and Freddie being formed by the federal
government to buy those loans as part of that law to help investment
banks stay solvent.
Nope it was the LACK of federal law and the LACK of banking oversight produced by the Republican Congressman from Texas introducing the repeal of Glass Steagall.
Had Glass Steagall NOT been repealed in 1999 investment banking would have remained forbidden to the banking industry and banking and investmentfirms
would have remained separate entities with derivatives limited
to investors willing to take on risks equivalent to the commodities
market where where you can go broke rahter quickly even after POURING money into it.
That's for speculators, not people relying on their 401k's or
hedge funds and mutual fund accounts.
Or it WAS until the repeal of Glass Steagal, now it's
akin to paramutual bettings only with much greater risk.
With Glass Steagall in place.
The banks being unable to gamble with banking clients
accounts, 401k's and hedge funds these derivatives would
never have been able to initiate the banking meltdown as they'd have
to have made FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE mortage loans rather then to be so eager
to bundle sub-prime mortgages into derivatives on 32 - 1 margins
in anticipation of huge profit at equally huge risk.
All this on account of the repeal of Glass Steagall.
Large banking institutions engaged in speculation with investors monies
in derivatives is the cause.
It was federal law that forced them into that practice. The "Community
Reinvestment Act" to be precise.
Bill Clinton is partially to blame while the Republican Congressmanfrom
Texas who first proposed the repeal of the Glass Steagall act is dead
center
to blame.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
You parrot left-wing talking points well.
Actually these are FACTS it appears you cannot be bothered to verify.
cabinet.Bill Clinton could have vetoed the repeal of Glass Steagall but hisout and
financial
advisors
advised him they would be good for the economy, he's recently come
admitted
his mistake.
Poor Slick, he was a victim of the bad old Republicans and poor advice.
I didn't say that, his finanacial advisors were members of his own
The Republican Congressman from Texas didn't advise Bill Clinton,
rather he was persuaded NOT to veto the bill after Republicans pushed the legislation through Congress.
It was his own cabinet advisors that led Clinton astray
and he's admitted to the error.
Don't go building strawmen then claim points for refuting that
which I never said, that's dishonest and deceitful.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Another of your profound rebuttals?
BTW The Glass Steagall Act was first enacted after the GreatDepression to
prevent
PRECISELY this sort of irresponsible lending by banking institutions.
Do you even know what Glass Steagall is about?
YES, do you?
I can explain it to you if you like.
It took a mere eight years after the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act
for the house of cards to come crashing down.
Glass Steagall has nothing to do with sub-prime loans.
No it does not, it separates speculative investment firms from the banking industry.
That is NOT to say it's REPEAL had nothing to do with sub-prime
mortgages as
sub-prime mortgages gave investment banking the funds on 30 - 1 margin
to engage in the practice of selling worthless derivatives, than
shorting them.
Thus the financial collapse.
Sub-prime loans were the SOURCE of the funds along with mutual funds and 401k
the banks would not have been able to otherwise engage in investing in woorthless derivatives had not Glass Steagal been repealed.
Rather more complicated than can be rebutted by your extended ha ha's
and numerous exclamation points.
Actually only two years as the first down was Enron then WorldComprecisely
which should have alerted to these bad practices as these were
the sort of speculative packages sold as derivatives.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
So you'd no idea that Enron spun off worthless assets to
subsidiaries in order to cook the books resulting in its collapse?
You appear to find all of this rather amusing from your
lack of rebuttal with any more depth than "hahahahahaha..." with bunches of exclaimation points
IOW's both the Great Depression AND the current massive recession had
almost identical causes.
Yes, too much government meddling.
To Little, Glass Steagall "meddling" as you call it by enforcing the separation
of investment firms from banking firms held up for near seventy years until repealed.
After that not eight years passed before the house of cards fell apart.
It's kind of like my taking monies from your savings account and 401K
and going off to the dog track and playing a few 6 dollar box
trifectas in hopes of hitting a big one.
The Great Depression was caused by buying on margin and the current
recession
by speculation on derivative packages engaged in by large banking at up
to 32 to 1 margin.
Total bunk.
You don't watch a lot of PBS do you?
Nor hit multiple and varied sources of information on the internet?
I hit BOTH Republican AND Democratic web sites and employ dialectic reasoning
to arrive at my conclusions.
Just as the current recession hit investment banking was gambling with
derivative packages of dubious value at the margin of 30 - 1 actual
dollars, banking dollars, like those kept in checking anbd savings
accounts.
Who was supposed to lose WRT government mandated sub-prime loans? Were
the banks just supposed to eat their losses when the borrowers were
unable to pay their loan payments? It was federal law, CRA again, that
mandated banks give loans to people who had no real means to pay those
loans so the federal government could "right a wrong" where there was
none. Fannie, and then Freddie was set up to take on those toxic loans
in an attempt to keep the banks from going bankrupt.
It's rather easy to gamble with other peoples monies for short termhuge
personal
financial gain.
Do you even have a clue what a sub-prime loan is and why banks were
selling them to Fannie and Freddie? It wasn't for "short term huge
personal financial gain."
The current "fix" proposed by Democrats is to reduce the magin from32 - 1
to 10 to 1 and to limit the size to which large banks can grow.
Oh yeah, limit freedom. That's always how Democrats think.
Limit irresponsible collusion between questionable investment firm derivatives
and the nations banking customers assets in savings. checking and 401k's.
That's how critcal thinking people think regardless of party affiliation.
You've something against the retirees wiped out in the derivatives
fueled economic crash?
The crash FUELED by sub-prime mortgages bundled into derivatives
then shorted by the banking - investment firms that passed them off
to customers as sound investments?
This amounts to a reinstatement of a rather watered down version of the
Glass
Steagall Act that had been rather effective in preventing such enormous
financial meltdowns since the 1930's.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
Another _convincing_ rebuttal.
The banks after the repeal of Glass Steagall rolled themselves into
investment
firms buying on margin just like individual investors in 1929 and just
as in
1929 this came back and bit the American economy in the a**.
You parrot the propaganda well.
Why don't you do a little research rather than just parroting Republican taking points, Rush and Glenn Beck?
I'm citing verifiable facts and history, your lack of comprehension of these
facts
and history in no way indicates I've been the least bit influenced by propaganda, that's your your shtick.
And yes I do indeed read The Wall Street Journal among a great many other sources.
http://online.wsj.com/home-page