[rnen]

No way the Dems will cut these jobs permanently, I doubt most of the lay offs will even happen. They are way too beholden to the unions to allow this.

If you live in CA prepare to pay much, much more in taxes over the next 2 yrs. They are talking about taxing our taxes!!! WTF?????
We can rest easy though knowing that the marsh mouse in SF is being protected to the tune of 30 million. Thanks Pelosie, I’ll sleep better at night.

[rnen]

No way the Dems will cut these jobs permanently, I doubt most of the lay offs will even happen. They are way too beholden to the unions to allow this.

If you live in CA prepare to pay much, much more in taxes over the next 2 yrs. They are talking about taxing our taxes!!! WTF?????
We can rest easy though knowing that the marsh mouse in SF is being protected to the tune of 30 million. Thanks Pelosie, I’ll sleep better at night.

[rnen]

No way the Dems will cut these jobs permanently, I doubt most of the lay offs will even happen. They are way too beholden to the unions to allow this.

If you live in CA prepare to pay much, much more in taxes over the next 2 yrs. They are talking about taxing our taxes!!! WTF?????
We can rest easy though knowing that the marsh mouse in SF is being protected to the tune of 30 million. Thanks Pelosie, I’ll sleep better at night.

[rnen]

No way the Dems will cut these jobs permanently, I doubt most of the lay offs will even happen. They are way too beholden to the unions to allow this.

If you live in CA prepare to pay much, much more in taxes over the next 2 yrs. They are talking about taxing our taxes!!! WTF?????
We can rest easy though knowing that the marsh mouse in SF is being protected to the tune of 30 million. Thanks Pelosie, I’ll sleep better at night.

[rnen]

No way the Dems will cut these jobs permanently, I doubt most of the lay offs will even happen. They are way too beholden to the unions to allow this.

If you live in CA prepare to pay much, much more in taxes over the next 2 yrs. They are talking about taxing our taxes!!! WTF?????
We can rest easy though knowing that the marsh mouse in SF is being protected to the tune of 30 million. Thanks Pelosie, I’ll sleep better at night.

[rnen]

Let see, my shop trucks are both GMC… one a 03 the other a 04 and both pieces of crap. Almost to the day of the waranties running out we had electrical problems on both of them. The front suspension is so weak if you run over a dime you need to get an alignment! Speedo stopped working on one, the circulation fan on the other as well as the left side of the stereo.

I have owned nissan pick ups in the past and zero problems. I currently drive a 04 BMW 325, runs like the day it came off the line. Before that a 1989 325 with 120,ooo miles on it that ran flawlessly, I installed an after market turbo system on it and it was great until I added too much boost and blew a head gasket. MY fault not BMW.

IMHO and experience GMC and their pampered union workers turn out crap. I must be the exception to the rule.

[rnen]

Let see, my shop trucks are both GMC… one a 03 the other a 04 and both pieces of crap. Almost to the day of the waranties running out we had electrical problems on both of them. The front suspension is so weak if you run over a dime you need to get an alignment! Speedo stopped working on one, the circulation fan on the other as well as the left side of the stereo.

I have owned nissan pick ups in the past and zero problems. I currently drive a 04 BMW 325, runs like the day it came off the line. Before that a 1989 325 with 120,ooo miles on it that ran flawlessly, I installed an after market turbo system on it and it was great until I added too much boost and blew a head gasket. MY fault not BMW.

IMHO and experience GMC and their pampered union workers turn out crap. I must be the exception to the rule.

[rnen]

Let see, my shop trucks are both GMC… one a 03 the other a 04 and both pieces of crap. Almost to the day of the waranties running out we had electrical problems on both of them. The front suspension is so weak if you run over a dime you need to get an alignment! Speedo stopped working on one, the circulation fan on the other as well as the left side of the stereo.

I have owned nissan pick ups in the past and zero problems. I currently drive a 04 BMW 325, runs like the day it came off the line. Before that a 1989 325 with 120,ooo miles on it that ran flawlessly, I installed an after market turbo system on it and it was great until I added too much boost and blew a head gasket. MY fault not BMW.

IMHO and experience GMC and their pampered union workers turn out crap. I must be the exception to the rule.

[rnen]

Let see, my shop trucks are both GMC… one a 03 the other a 04 and both pieces of crap. Almost to the day of the waranties running out we had electrical problems on both of them. The front suspension is so weak if you run over a dime you need to get an alignment! Speedo stopped working on one, the circulation fan on the other as well as the left side of the stereo.

I have owned nissan pick ups in the past and zero problems. I currently drive a 04 BMW 325, runs like the day it came off the line. Before that a 1989 325 with 120,ooo miles on it that ran flawlessly, I installed an after market turbo system on it and it was great until I added too much boost and blew a head gasket. MY fault not BMW.

IMHO and experience GMC and their pampered union workers turn out crap. I must be the exception to the rule.

[rnen]

Let see, my shop trucks are both GMC… one a 03 the other a 04 and both pieces of crap. Almost to the day of the waranties running out we had electrical problems on both of them. The front suspension is so weak if you run over a dime you need to get an alignment! Speedo stopped working on one, the circulation fan on the other as well as the left side of the stereo.

I have owned nissan pick ups in the past and zero problems. I currently drive a 04 BMW 325, runs like the day it came off the line. Before that a 1989 325 with 120,ooo miles on it that ran flawlessly, I installed an after market turbo system on it and it was great until I added too much boost and blew a head gasket. MY fault not BMW.

IMHO and experience GMC and their pampered union workers turn out crap. I must be the exception to the rule.

[rnen]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=rnen]

Do we need to rethink the banking system as a whole? Absolutely. Do we need to put regulations and controls on the banking system? With out a doubt. Do we want the government to decide who qaulifies for a loan? Gee, maybe not such a good idea.

Just imagine the shape we would be in if the likes of Frank, Shumer and Waters dictated lending policies.

[/quote]

Ring…ring…ring. “Hi, this is the cluephone. Who do you think is going to put ‘regulations and controls’ on the banking system? Ding! Ding! Ding! That’s right, it’ll have to be the government. Frank, Schumer, and Waters. Get a clue.”

So under your ‘private banks’ plan we have two corrupt systems – the government and the private banks. The private banksters then pay the government politicians to keep easing back on regs so that they can continue to rape America. If all the banks were controlled only by the government, there wouldn’t be any lobbying/payments to politicians from banks and maybe then the government would put in some reasonable regs. With private banks, there’s no chance of that happening.

How do you reconcile your view that banks need governmental ‘regulations and controls’ (presumably from the same government that Frank, Schumers, and Waters are a part of) with your view that we need private banks and that Frank, Schumers, and Waters shouldn’t dictate ‘lending policies’? So Frank, Schumers, and Waters are capable of crafting reasonable ‘regulations and controls’, but they aren’t capable of creating reasonable ‘lending policies’? There is a massive logical disconnect in your argument.

We’ve already tried ‘private banks’. They failed. Big time. Why do you want to go back there? What’s going to stop them from raping the system and failing again? A government led by Frank, Schumers, and Waters is going to stop the private banks from raping the system again? Please. Other than abolishing the Fed and the fractional reserve banking system, the only hope of having a banking system that won’t rape and pillage is to make it 100% owned by the government.

[/quote]

I agree the current system failed badly. It needs an overhaul, and it can be done with responsible people at the helm who are not beholden to every freaking special intrest group that feeds them money.
Do you really believe that a single bank run by the government is a better alternative? So we eliminate all the banks and credit unions, who compete for our business, and create a monopoly run by the government. Do you think that maybe they would have just found a new way to squeeze more out of all of us to fund even more pork projects? Given how efficient the government operates do you really believe we will all be better off?
Do you really want the government to have complete access to all your finiance activity?

This is not going to be an easy problem to solve but I for one will never support putting all my faith in the government.

[rnen]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=rnen]

Do we need to rethink the banking system as a whole? Absolutely. Do we need to put regulations and controls on the banking system? With out a doubt. Do we want the government to decide who qaulifies for a loan? Gee, maybe not such a good idea.

Just imagine the shape we would be in if the likes of Frank, Shumer and Waters dictated lending policies.

[/quote]

Ring…ring…ring. “Hi, this is the cluephone. Who do you think is going to put ‘regulations and controls’ on the banking system? Ding! Ding! Ding! That’s right, it’ll have to be the government. Frank, Schumer, and Waters. Get a clue.”

So under your ‘private banks’ plan we have two corrupt systems – the government and the private banks. The private banksters then pay the government politicians to keep easing back on regs so that they can continue to rape America. If all the banks were controlled only by the government, there wouldn’t be any lobbying/payments to politicians from banks and maybe then the government would put in some reasonable regs. With private banks, there’s no chance of that happening.

How do you reconcile your view that banks need governmental ‘regulations and controls’ (presumably from the same government that Frank, Schumers, and Waters are a part of) with your view that we need private banks and that Frank, Schumers, and Waters shouldn’t dictate ‘lending policies’? So Frank, Schumers, and Waters are capable of crafting reasonable ‘regulations and controls’, but they aren’t capable of creating reasonable ‘lending policies’? There is a massive logical disconnect in your argument.

We’ve already tried ‘private banks’. They failed. Big time. Why do you want to go back there? What’s going to stop them from raping the system and failing again? A government led by Frank, Schumers, and Waters is going to stop the private banks from raping the system again? Please. Other than abolishing the Fed and the fractional reserve banking system, the only hope of having a banking system that won’t rape and pillage is to make it 100% owned by the government.

[/quote]

I agree the current system failed badly. It needs an overhaul, and it can be done with responsible people at the helm who are not beholden to every freaking special intrest group that feeds them money.
Do you really believe that a single bank run by the government is a better alternative? So we eliminate all the banks and credit unions, who compete for our business, and create a monopoly run by the government. Do you think that maybe they would have just found a new way to squeeze more out of all of us to fund even more pork projects? Given how efficient the government operates do you really believe we will all be better off?
Do you really want the government to have complete access to all your finiance activity?

This is not going to be an easy problem to solve but I for one will never support putting all my faith in the government.

[rnen]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=rnen]

Do we need to rethink the banking system as a whole? Absolutely. Do we need to put regulations and controls on the banking system? With out a doubt. Do we want the government to decide who qaulifies for a loan? Gee, maybe not such a good idea.

Just imagine the shape we would be in if the likes of Frank, Shumer and Waters dictated lending policies.

[/quote]

Ring…ring…ring. “Hi, this is the cluephone. Who do you think is going to put ‘regulations and controls’ on the banking system? Ding! Ding! Ding! That’s right, it’ll have to be the government. Frank, Schumer, and Waters. Get a clue.”

So under your ‘private banks’ plan we have two corrupt systems – the government and the private banks. The private banksters then pay the government politicians to keep easing back on regs so that they can continue to rape America. If all the banks were controlled only by the government, there wouldn’t be any lobbying/payments to politicians from banks and maybe then the government would put in some reasonable regs. With private banks, there’s no chance of that happening.

How do you reconcile your view that banks need governmental ‘regulations and controls’ (presumably from the same government that Frank, Schumers, and Waters are a part of) with your view that we need private banks and that Frank, Schumers, and Waters shouldn’t dictate ‘lending policies’? So Frank, Schumers, and Waters are capable of crafting reasonable ‘regulations and controls’, but they aren’t capable of creating reasonable ‘lending policies’? There is a massive logical disconnect in your argument.

We’ve already tried ‘private banks’. They failed. Big time. Why do you want to go back there? What’s going to stop them from raping the system and failing again? A government led by Frank, Schumers, and Waters is going to stop the private banks from raping the system again? Please. Other than abolishing the Fed and the fractional reserve banking system, the only hope of having a banking system that won’t rape and pillage is to make it 100% owned by the government.

[/quote]

I agree the current system failed badly. It needs an overhaul, and it can be done with responsible people at the helm who are not beholden to every freaking special intrest group that feeds them money.
Do you really believe that a single bank run by the government is a better alternative? So we eliminate all the banks and credit unions, who compete for our business, and create a monopoly run by the government. Do you think that maybe they would have just found a new way to squeeze more out of all of us to fund even more pork projects? Given how efficient the government operates do you really believe we will all be better off?
Do you really want the government to have complete access to all your finiance activity?

This is not going to be an easy problem to solve but I for one will never support putting all my faith in the government.

[rnen]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=rnen]

Do we need to rethink the banking system as a whole? Absolutely. Do we need to put regulations and controls on the banking system? With out a doubt. Do we want the government to decide who qaulifies for a loan? Gee, maybe not such a good idea.

Just imagine the shape we would be in if the likes of Frank, Shumer and Waters dictated lending policies.

[/quote]

Ring…ring…ring. “Hi, this is the cluephone. Who do you think is going to put ‘regulations and controls’ on the banking system? Ding! Ding! Ding! That’s right, it’ll have to be the government. Frank, Schumer, and Waters. Get a clue.”

So under your ‘private banks’ plan we have two corrupt systems – the government and the private banks. The private banksters then pay the government politicians to keep easing back on regs so that they can continue to rape America. If all the banks were controlled only by the government, there wouldn’t be any lobbying/payments to politicians from banks and maybe then the government would put in some reasonable regs. With private banks, there’s no chance of that happening.

How do you reconcile your view that banks need governmental ‘regulations and controls’ (presumably from the same government that Frank, Schumers, and Waters are a part of) with your view that we need private banks and that Frank, Schumers, and Waters shouldn’t dictate ‘lending policies’? So Frank, Schumers, and Waters are capable of crafting reasonable ‘regulations and controls’, but they aren’t capable of creating reasonable ‘lending policies’? There is a massive logical disconnect in your argument.

We’ve already tried ‘private banks’. They failed. Big time. Why do you want to go back there? What’s going to stop them from raping the system and failing again? A government led by Frank, Schumers, and Waters is going to stop the private banks from raping the system again? Please. Other than abolishing the Fed and the fractional reserve banking system, the only hope of having a banking system that won’t rape and pillage is to make it 100% owned by the government.

[/quote]

I agree the current system failed badly. It needs an overhaul, and it can be done with responsible people at the helm who are not beholden to every freaking special intrest group that feeds them money.
Do you really believe that a single bank run by the government is a better alternative? So we eliminate all the banks and credit unions, who compete for our business, and create a monopoly run by the government. Do you think that maybe they would have just found a new way to squeeze more out of all of us to fund even more pork projects? Given how efficient the government operates do you really believe we will all be better off?
Do you really want the government to have complete access to all your finiance activity?

This is not going to be an easy problem to solve but I for one will never support putting all my faith in the government.

[rnen]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=rnen]

Do we need to rethink the banking system as a whole? Absolutely. Do we need to put regulations and controls on the banking system? With out a doubt. Do we want the government to decide who qaulifies for a loan? Gee, maybe not such a good idea.

Just imagine the shape we would be in if the likes of Frank, Shumer and Waters dictated lending policies.

[/quote]

Ring…ring…ring. “Hi, this is the cluephone. Who do you think is going to put ‘regulations and controls’ on the banking system? Ding! Ding! Ding! That’s right, it’ll have to be the government. Frank, Schumer, and Waters. Get a clue.”

So under your ‘private banks’ plan we have two corrupt systems – the government and the private banks. The private banksters then pay the government politicians to keep easing back on regs so that they can continue to rape America. If all the banks were controlled only by the government, there wouldn’t be any lobbying/payments to politicians from banks and maybe then the government would put in some reasonable regs. With private banks, there’s no chance of that happening.

How do you reconcile your view that banks need governmental ‘regulations and controls’ (presumably from the same government that Frank, Schumers, and Waters are a part of) with your view that we need private banks and that Frank, Schumers, and Waters shouldn’t dictate ‘lending policies’? So Frank, Schumers, and Waters are capable of crafting reasonable ‘regulations and controls’, but they aren’t capable of creating reasonable ‘lending policies’? There is a massive logical disconnect in your argument.

We’ve already tried ‘private banks’. They failed. Big time. Why do you want to go back there? What’s going to stop them from raping the system and failing again? A government led by Frank, Schumers, and Waters is going to stop the private banks from raping the system again? Please. Other than abolishing the Fed and the fractional reserve banking system, the only hope of having a banking system that won’t rape and pillage is to make it 100% owned by the government.

[/quote]

I agree the current system failed badly. It needs an overhaul, and it can be done with responsible people at the helm who are not beholden to every freaking special intrest group that feeds them money.
Do you really believe that a single bank run by the government is a better alternative? So we eliminate all the banks and credit unions, who compete for our business, and create a monopoly run by the government. Do you think that maybe they would have just found a new way to squeeze more out of all of us to fund even more pork projects? Given how efficient the government operates do you really believe we will all be better off?
Do you really want the government to have complete access to all your finiance activity?

This is not going to be an easy problem to solve but I for one will never support putting all my faith in the government.

[Author]

Posts