Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
TheBreeze
Participant[quote=flu]
Breezie. What is it that you want? Do you want a complete collapse of the U.S. economy? Do you look forward to everyone being thrown on the street, no food, no water, and everyone armed with guns, reversion back to the wild wild west in which needs/wants are satisfied the ones with the bigger guns….It’s not a question of whether or not government throwing more money is risky or not. Everything has risk. Guess what, this is the almost like General Custard’s last stand. It’s the Hail Mary, or whatever your faith calls it. Obama and this administration just traded off our future generations by how much we’re going to spend. We’re going to be spending more money on bank bailouts. You think there are better alternatives?
[/quote]Ah, the old false choice. Either we give all of our monies to the financial oligarchy or we all live in decrepit poverty the rest of our lives.
How about this choice: We throw every member of the financial oligarchy in jail, take their ill-gotten money, and distribute it to the rest of the population and use it to pay down debt. Why is that not a viable option? In your warped world-view everyhing that everyone has comes from that magnificent top 1% of wealth holders. In reality, the top 1% has stolen their money from everyone else.
Participant[quote=flu]
Breezie. What is it that you want? Do you want a complete collapse of the U.S. economy? Do you look forward to everyone being thrown on the street, no food, no water, and everyone armed with guns, reversion back to the wild wild west in which needs/wants are satisfied the ones with the bigger guns….It’s not a question of whether or not government throwing more money is risky or not. Everything has risk. Guess what, this is the almost like General Custard’s last stand. It’s the Hail Mary, or whatever your faith calls it. Obama and this administration just traded off our future generations by how much we’re going to spend. We’re going to be spending more money on bank bailouts. You think there are better alternatives?
[/quote]Ah, the old false choice. Either we give all of our monies to the financial oligarchy or we all live in decrepit poverty the rest of our lives.
How about this choice: We throw every member of the financial oligarchy in jail, take their ill-gotten money, and distribute it to the rest of the population and use it to pay down debt. Why is that not a viable option? In your warped world-view everyhing that everyone has comes from that magnificent top 1% of wealth holders. In reality, the top 1% has stolen their money from everyone else.
Participant[quote=flu]
Breezie. What is it that you want? Do you want a complete collapse of the U.S. economy? Do you look forward to everyone being thrown on the street, no food, no water, and everyone armed with guns, reversion back to the wild wild west in which needs/wants are satisfied the ones with the bigger guns….It’s not a question of whether or not government throwing more money is risky or not. Everything has risk. Guess what, this is the almost like General Custard’s last stand. It’s the Hail Mary, or whatever your faith calls it. Obama and this administration just traded off our future generations by how much we’re going to spend. We’re going to be spending more money on bank bailouts. You think there are better alternatives?
[/quote]Ah, the old false choice. Either we give all of our monies to the financial oligarchy or we all live in decrepit poverty the rest of our lives.
How about this choice: We throw every member of the financial oligarchy in jail, take their ill-gotten money, and distribute it to the rest of the population and use it to pay down debt. Why is that not a viable option? In your warped world-view everyhing that everyone has comes from that magnificent top 1% of wealth holders. In reality, the top 1% has stolen their money from everyone else.
Participant[quote=flu]
Breezie. What is it that you want? Do you want a complete collapse of the U.S. economy? Do you look forward to everyone being thrown on the street, no food, no water, and everyone armed with guns, reversion back to the wild wild west in which needs/wants are satisfied the ones with the bigger guns….It’s not a question of whether or not government throwing more money is risky or not. Everything has risk. Guess what, this is the almost like General Custard’s last stand. It’s the Hail Mary, or whatever your faith calls it. Obama and this administration just traded off our future generations by how much we’re going to spend. We’re going to be spending more money on bank bailouts. You think there are better alternatives?
[/quote]Ah, the old false choice. Either we give all of our monies to the financial oligarchy or we all live in decrepit poverty the rest of our lives.
How about this choice: We throw every member of the financial oligarchy in jail, take their ill-gotten money, and distribute it to the rest of the population and use it to pay down debt. Why is that not a viable option? In your warped world-view everyhing that everyone has comes from that magnificent top 1% of wealth holders. In reality, the top 1% has stolen their money from everyone else.
Participant[quote=davelj]
Please explain to me – and please be specific – how I would benefit from the bailouts? Seeing as I don’t have any investments in any parts of the capital structures of any bank that is receiving any government assistance (outside of generic FDIC insurance), I’m quite curious to find out. This should be a fascinating answer.
Signed,
Banker/Prick
[/quote]That may have been an inaccurate characterization on my part. Does your bank own any preferreds or other debt of the big banks?
Did you say in another thread that you were in favor of the big banks’ bondholders taking a hit? If so, you may have a reasonable plan. However, you appear to believe that the government is heading in that direction (and that the government wants to make money with TARP). I haven’t seen any evidence that would point to that.
Participant[quote=davelj]
Please explain to me – and please be specific – how I would benefit from the bailouts? Seeing as I don’t have any investments in any parts of the capital structures of any bank that is receiving any government assistance (outside of generic FDIC insurance), I’m quite curious to find out. This should be a fascinating answer.
Signed,
Banker/Prick
[/quote]That may have been an inaccurate characterization on my part. Does your bank own any preferreds or other debt of the big banks?
Did you say in another thread that you were in favor of the big banks’ bondholders taking a hit? If so, you may have a reasonable plan. However, you appear to believe that the government is heading in that direction (and that the government wants to make money with TARP). I haven’t seen any evidence that would point to that.
Participant[quote=davelj]
Please explain to me – and please be specific – how I would benefit from the bailouts? Seeing as I don’t have any investments in any parts of the capital structures of any bank that is receiving any government assistance (outside of generic FDIC insurance), I’m quite curious to find out. This should be a fascinating answer.
Signed,
Banker/Prick
[/quote]That may have been an inaccurate characterization on my part. Does your bank own any preferreds or other debt of the big banks?
Did you say in another thread that you were in favor of the big banks’ bondholders taking a hit? If so, you may have a reasonable plan. However, you appear to believe that the government is heading in that direction (and that the government wants to make money with TARP). I haven’t seen any evidence that would point to that.
Participant[quote=davelj]
Please explain to me – and please be specific – how I would benefit from the bailouts? Seeing as I don’t have any investments in any parts of the capital structures of any bank that is receiving any government assistance (outside of generic FDIC insurance), I’m quite curious to find out. This should be a fascinating answer.
Signed,
Banker/Prick
[/quote]That may have been an inaccurate characterization on my part. Does your bank own any preferreds or other debt of the big banks?
Did you say in another thread that you were in favor of the big banks’ bondholders taking a hit? If so, you may have a reasonable plan. However, you appear to believe that the government is heading in that direction (and that the government wants to make money with TARP). I haven’t seen any evidence that would point to that.
Participant[quote=davelj]
Please explain to me – and please be specific – how I would benefit from the bailouts? Seeing as I don’t have any investments in any parts of the capital structures of any bank that is receiving any government assistance (outside of generic FDIC insurance), I’m quite curious to find out. This should be a fascinating answer.
Signed,
Banker/Prick
[/quote]That may have been an inaccurate characterization on my part. Does your bank own any preferreds or other debt of the big banks?
Did you say in another thread that you were in favor of the big banks’ bondholders taking a hit? If so, you may have a reasonable plan. However, you appear to believe that the government is heading in that direction (and that the government wants to make money with TARP). I haven’t seen any evidence that would point to that.
ParticipantAN convinced me to vote for Bob Barr due to the fact that if a third-party receives some percentage (5%?) of the vote in California they are eligible for some kind of state funding the next go around. There’s a thread around here somewhere where I responded to AN and said I was going to vote for Bob Barr for that reason. It’s not like Obama needed my vote to carry California.
I was genuinely glad when Obama won. Now, I’m starting to think McCain would have been better for two reasons:
(1) As Flu pointed out above, Obama is in the same party as the douches who conrol Congress; and
(2) Obama is TOO LIKABLEThe same party thing is fairly obvious. Divided government is best that way less stupid shit gets passed. However, the TOO LIKABLE thing is giving the banksters perfect cover to loot. I read an article the other day that said Obama has an 88% approval rating among Democrats. He is doing the exact same shit as Bush in regards to the economy, but 88% of Democrats approve. If McCain had won and his treasury had tried to pull this crap there would have been a massive uprising. I think I see now why Partypup believes that the establishment hand-picked Obama to win. He is the perfect cover guy that lets the financial oligarchy get away with financial murder.
By the way, I never characterized Bear Stearns as either an investment bank or a commercial bank. I just said that the same thing that happened to Bear Stearns could happen to any bank (short-term funding could dry up and the bank wouldn’t be able to meet their obligations).
Davelj then went off with some kind of righteous indignation and then said this could never happen to a commercial bank due to their deposit base. I then asked for someone to tell me how much short-term debt Citigroup had, but of course, none of Three Stooges (davelj, Allan, or FLU) has any idea. They’d rather insinuate that I’m an idiot as opposed to acknowledging that commercial banks would likely be in the same bind as the investment banks without all these government guarantees.
By the way, according to the 10-K, Citi has $774 billion in deposits, $205 billion in repurchase agreements, $486 billion in short-term borrowings and long-term debt, $167 in Trading account liabilities and $164 in ‘other’ liabilities. So they have a little over $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities. Their market cap is $15 billion. But yeah, I’m sure Citigroup could keep trucking right along if their creditors refused to roll over the $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities.
By the way, it’s quite a coincidence that those who most stand to benefit by the bailouts (Davelj – banker/prick; FLU – family members who are criminal investment bankers; Allan – insurance guy) are in favor of them.
ParticipantAN convinced me to vote for Bob Barr due to the fact that if a third-party receives some percentage (5%?) of the vote in California they are eligible for some kind of state funding the next go around. There’s a thread around here somewhere where I responded to AN and said I was going to vote for Bob Barr for that reason. It’s not like Obama needed my vote to carry California.
I was genuinely glad when Obama won. Now, I’m starting to think McCain would have been better for two reasons:
(1) As Flu pointed out above, Obama is in the same party as the douches who conrol Congress; and
(2) Obama is TOO LIKABLEThe same party thing is fairly obvious. Divided government is best that way less stupid shit gets passed. However, the TOO LIKABLE thing is giving the banksters perfect cover to loot. I read an article the other day that said Obama has an 88% approval rating among Democrats. He is doing the exact same shit as Bush in regards to the economy, but 88% of Democrats approve. If McCain had won and his treasury had tried to pull this crap there would have been a massive uprising. I think I see now why Partypup believes that the establishment hand-picked Obama to win. He is the perfect cover guy that lets the financial oligarchy get away with financial murder.
By the way, I never characterized Bear Stearns as either an investment bank or a commercial bank. I just said that the same thing that happened to Bear Stearns could happen to any bank (short-term funding could dry up and the bank wouldn’t be able to meet their obligations).
Davelj then went off with some kind of righteous indignation and then said this could never happen to a commercial bank due to their deposit base. I then asked for someone to tell me how much short-term debt Citigroup had, but of course, none of Three Stooges (davelj, Allan, or FLU) has any idea. They’d rather insinuate that I’m an idiot as opposed to acknowledging that commercial banks would likely be in the same bind as the investment banks without all these government guarantees.
By the way, according to the 10-K, Citi has $774 billion in deposits, $205 billion in repurchase agreements, $486 billion in short-term borrowings and long-term debt, $167 in Trading account liabilities and $164 in ‘other’ liabilities. So they have a little over $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities. Their market cap is $15 billion. But yeah, I’m sure Citigroup could keep trucking right along if their creditors refused to roll over the $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities.
By the way, it’s quite a coincidence that those who most stand to benefit by the bailouts (Davelj – banker/prick; FLU – family members who are criminal investment bankers; Allan – insurance guy) are in favor of them.
ParticipantAN convinced me to vote for Bob Barr due to the fact that if a third-party receives some percentage (5%?) of the vote in California they are eligible for some kind of state funding the next go around. There’s a thread around here somewhere where I responded to AN and said I was going to vote for Bob Barr for that reason. It’s not like Obama needed my vote to carry California.
I was genuinely glad when Obama won. Now, I’m starting to think McCain would have been better for two reasons:
(1) As Flu pointed out above, Obama is in the same party as the douches who conrol Congress; and
(2) Obama is TOO LIKABLEThe same party thing is fairly obvious. Divided government is best that way less stupid shit gets passed. However, the TOO LIKABLE thing is giving the banksters perfect cover to loot. I read an article the other day that said Obama has an 88% approval rating among Democrats. He is doing the exact same shit as Bush in regards to the economy, but 88% of Democrats approve. If McCain had won and his treasury had tried to pull this crap there would have been a massive uprising. I think I see now why Partypup believes that the establishment hand-picked Obama to win. He is the perfect cover guy that lets the financial oligarchy get away with financial murder.
By the way, I never characterized Bear Stearns as either an investment bank or a commercial bank. I just said that the same thing that happened to Bear Stearns could happen to any bank (short-term funding could dry up and the bank wouldn’t be able to meet their obligations).
Davelj then went off with some kind of righteous indignation and then said this could never happen to a commercial bank due to their deposit base. I then asked for someone to tell me how much short-term debt Citigroup had, but of course, none of Three Stooges (davelj, Allan, or FLU) has any idea. They’d rather insinuate that I’m an idiot as opposed to acknowledging that commercial banks would likely be in the same bind as the investment banks without all these government guarantees.
By the way, according to the 10-K, Citi has $774 billion in deposits, $205 billion in repurchase agreements, $486 billion in short-term borrowings and long-term debt, $167 in Trading account liabilities and $164 in ‘other’ liabilities. So they have a little over $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities. Their market cap is $15 billion. But yeah, I’m sure Citigroup could keep trucking right along if their creditors refused to roll over the $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities.
By the way, it’s quite a coincidence that those who most stand to benefit by the bailouts (Davelj – banker/prick; FLU – family members who are criminal investment bankers; Allan – insurance guy) are in favor of them.
ParticipantAN convinced me to vote for Bob Barr due to the fact that if a third-party receives some percentage (5%?) of the vote in California they are eligible for some kind of state funding the next go around. There’s a thread around here somewhere where I responded to AN and said I was going to vote for Bob Barr for that reason. It’s not like Obama needed my vote to carry California.
I was genuinely glad when Obama won. Now, I’m starting to think McCain would have been better for two reasons:
(1) As Flu pointed out above, Obama is in the same party as the douches who conrol Congress; and
(2) Obama is TOO LIKABLEThe same party thing is fairly obvious. Divided government is best that way less stupid shit gets passed. However, the TOO LIKABLE thing is giving the banksters perfect cover to loot. I read an article the other day that said Obama has an 88% approval rating among Democrats. He is doing the exact same shit as Bush in regards to the economy, but 88% of Democrats approve. If McCain had won and his treasury had tried to pull this crap there would have been a massive uprising. I think I see now why Partypup believes that the establishment hand-picked Obama to win. He is the perfect cover guy that lets the financial oligarchy get away with financial murder.
By the way, I never characterized Bear Stearns as either an investment bank or a commercial bank. I just said that the same thing that happened to Bear Stearns could happen to any bank (short-term funding could dry up and the bank wouldn’t be able to meet their obligations).
Davelj then went off with some kind of righteous indignation and then said this could never happen to a commercial bank due to their deposit base. I then asked for someone to tell me how much short-term debt Citigroup had, but of course, none of Three Stooges (davelj, Allan, or FLU) has any idea. They’d rather insinuate that I’m an idiot as opposed to acknowledging that commercial banks would likely be in the same bind as the investment banks without all these government guarantees.
By the way, according to the 10-K, Citi has $774 billion in deposits, $205 billion in repurchase agreements, $486 billion in short-term borrowings and long-term debt, $167 in Trading account liabilities and $164 in ‘other’ liabilities. So they have a little over $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities. Their market cap is $15 billion. But yeah, I’m sure Citigroup could keep trucking right along if their creditors refused to roll over the $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities.
By the way, it’s quite a coincidence that those who most stand to benefit by the bailouts (Davelj – banker/prick; FLU – family members who are criminal investment bankers; Allan – insurance guy) are in favor of them.
ParticipantAN convinced me to vote for Bob Barr due to the fact that if a third-party receives some percentage (5%?) of the vote in California they are eligible for some kind of state funding the next go around. There’s a thread around here somewhere where I responded to AN and said I was going to vote for Bob Barr for that reason. It’s not like Obama needed my vote to carry California.
I was genuinely glad when Obama won. Now, I’m starting to think McCain would have been better for two reasons:
(1) As Flu pointed out above, Obama is in the same party as the douches who conrol Congress; and
(2) Obama is TOO LIKABLEThe same party thing is fairly obvious. Divided government is best that way less stupid shit gets passed. However, the TOO LIKABLE thing is giving the banksters perfect cover to loot. I read an article the other day that said Obama has an 88% approval rating among Democrats. He is doing the exact same shit as Bush in regards to the economy, but 88% of Democrats approve. If McCain had won and his treasury had tried to pull this crap there would have been a massive uprising. I think I see now why Partypup believes that the establishment hand-picked Obama to win. He is the perfect cover guy that lets the financial oligarchy get away with financial murder.
By the way, I never characterized Bear Stearns as either an investment bank or a commercial bank. I just said that the same thing that happened to Bear Stearns could happen to any bank (short-term funding could dry up and the bank wouldn’t be able to meet their obligations).
Davelj then went off with some kind of righteous indignation and then said this could never happen to a commercial bank due to their deposit base. I then asked for someone to tell me how much short-term debt Citigroup had, but of course, none of Three Stooges (davelj, Allan, or FLU) has any idea. They’d rather insinuate that I’m an idiot as opposed to acknowledging that commercial banks would likely be in the same bind as the investment banks without all these government guarantees.
By the way, according to the 10-K, Citi has $774 billion in deposits, $205 billion in repurchase agreements, $486 billion in short-term borrowings and long-term debt, $167 in Trading account liabilities and $164 in ‘other’ liabilities. So they have a little over $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities. Their market cap is $15 billion. But yeah, I’m sure Citigroup could keep trucking right along if their creditors refused to roll over the $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities.
By the way, it’s quite a coincidence that those who most stand to benefit by the bailouts (Davelj – banker/prick; FLU – family members who are criminal investment bankers; Allan – insurance guy) are in favor of them.
-
AuthorPosts