[svelte]

That matches the style George used when he supported Greenspan on the radio.

He basically stated he was angry with people whose negative comments about Greenspan were driving down the stock market. As if that alone caused people to cash in their stocks.

Looks like he used the same type of reasoning for why the housing market dumped.

Apparently, George just doesn’t get it.

Nice find, Mark.

[svelte]

At my first employer, I knew a couple who did that. Rented out their house and took a year leave to explore Europe, with a verbal agreement they would return after one year.

At the end of that year, so much had changed at the company that it was doing horribly and couldn’t hire them back.

It is hard to say whether they regretted their decision, it might have been just as well for them – being with a struggling employer is no fun.

Life is short, if the idea of taking a year off appeals to you (and you can afford it), go for it. Just don’t expect things to be the same when you return.

[svelte]

At my first employer, I knew a couple who did that. Rented out their house and took a year leave to explore Europe, with a verbal agreement they would return after one year.

At the end of that year, so much had changed at the company that it was doing horribly and couldn’t hire them back.

It is hard to say whether they regretted their decision, it might have been just as well for them – being with a struggling employer is no fun.

Life is short, if the idea of taking a year off appeals to you (and you can afford it), go for it. Just don’t expect things to be the same when you return.

[svelte]

At my first employer, I knew a couple who did that. Rented out their house and took a year leave to explore Europe, with a verbal agreement they would return after one year.

At the end of that year, so much had changed at the company that it was doing horribly and couldn’t hire them back.

It is hard to say whether they regretted their decision, it might have been just as well for them – being with a struggling employer is no fun.

Life is short, if the idea of taking a year off appeals to you (and you can afford it), go for it. Just don’t expect things to be the same when you return.

[svelte]

At my first employer, I knew a couple who did that. Rented out their house and took a year leave to explore Europe, with a verbal agreement they would return after one year.

At the end of that year, so much had changed at the company that it was doing horribly and couldn’t hire them back.

It is hard to say whether they regretted their decision, it might have been just as well for them – being with a struggling employer is no fun.

Life is short, if the idea of taking a year off appeals to you (and you can afford it), go for it. Just don’t expect things to be the same when you return.

[svelte]

At my first employer, I knew a couple who did that. Rented out their house and took a year leave to explore Europe, with a verbal agreement they would return after one year.

At the end of that year, so much had changed at the company that it was doing horribly and couldn’t hire them back.

It is hard to say whether they regretted their decision, it might have been just as well for them – being with a struggling employer is no fun.

Life is short, if the idea of taking a year off appeals to you (and you can afford it), go for it. Just don’t expect things to be the same when you return.

[svelte]

Huh?

This is the man who would use his morning radio time to berate anybody who said anything negative about Alan Greenspan. I distinctly remember him doing so many a morning while I drove to work.

Now, standing here in 2008, I think most of us question whether Greenspan was right.

Maybe you were being sarcastic, I dunno.

[svelte]

Huh?

This is the man who would use his morning radio time to berate anybody who said anything negative about Alan Greenspan. I distinctly remember him doing so many a morning while I drove to work.

Now, standing here in 2008, I think most of us question whether Greenspan was right.

Maybe you were being sarcastic, I dunno.

[svelte]

Huh?

This is the man who would use his morning radio time to berate anybody who said anything negative about Alan Greenspan. I distinctly remember him doing so many a morning while I drove to work.

Now, standing here in 2008, I think most of us question whether Greenspan was right.

Maybe you were being sarcastic, I dunno.

[svelte]

Huh?

This is the man who would use his morning radio time to berate anybody who said anything negative about Alan Greenspan. I distinctly remember him doing so many a morning while I drove to work.

Now, standing here in 2008, I think most of us question whether Greenspan was right.

Maybe you were being sarcastic, I dunno.

[svelte]

Huh?

This is the man who would use his morning radio time to berate anybody who said anything negative about Alan Greenspan. I distinctly remember him doing so many a morning while I drove to work.

Now, standing here in 2008, I think most of us question whether Greenspan was right.

Maybe you were being sarcastic, I dunno.

[svelte]

[quote=jficquette]
“Here’s the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”
John[/quote]

Hold the phone. Let’s try a couple of more quotes from that exact article:

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

…

The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

Let’s see, the Republican proposal is limited to Fannie/Freddie, would keep them exempt from fraud charges, would continue to implicitly guarantee bailout, and would transfer control from Congress to the Executive branch…and you think that was great legislation?

Shoot, if I were a Senator or Representative, I wouldn’t agree to giving control to the White House either!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63

[svelte]

[quote=jficquette]
“Here’s the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”
John[/quote]

Hold the phone. Let’s try a couple of more quotes from that exact article:

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

…

The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

Let’s see, the Republican proposal is limited to Fannie/Freddie, would keep them exempt from fraud charges, would continue to implicitly guarantee bailout, and would transfer control from Congress to the Executive branch…and you think that was great legislation?

Shoot, if I were a Senator or Representative, I wouldn’t agree to giving control to the White House either!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63

[svelte]

[quote=jficquette]
“Here’s the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”
John[/quote]

Hold the phone. Let’s try a couple of more quotes from that exact article:

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

…

The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

Let’s see, the Republican proposal is limited to Fannie/Freddie, would keep them exempt from fraud charges, would continue to implicitly guarantee bailout, and would transfer control from Congress to the Executive branch…and you think that was great legislation?

Shoot, if I were a Senator or Representative, I wouldn’t agree to giving control to the White House either!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63

[svelte]

[quote=jficquette]
“Here’s the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”
John[/quote]

Hold the phone. Let’s try a couple of more quotes from that exact article:

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

…

The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

Let’s see, the Republican proposal is limited to Fannie/Freddie, would keep them exempt from fraud charges, would continue to implicitly guarantee bailout, and would transfer control from Congress to the Executive branch…and you think that was great legislation?

Shoot, if I were a Senator or Representative, I wouldn’t agree to giving control to the White House either!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63

[Author]

Posts