$2330 per tax payer

[Dawkinsrocks]

That is what the US taxpayers have got to give to the banks.

All of those of you who hate giving any of your taxes to help the poor, how do you feel about giving lots lots more to the filthy rich?

[foggedinn]

I just "did the math".

That's 2330 per resident, not per taxpayer. That's every man, woman, and child in the United States; legal resident or illegal alien.

[Libsmasher]

I just "did the math".

That's 2330 per resident, not per taxpayer. That's every man, woman, and child in the United States; legal resident or illegal alien.

Actually, they're in effect giving it to all the deadbeat borrowers who never paid their loans back, and never will.

People borrowed money, they didn't pay it back. So everyone's mad at the BANKS?? That's like being mad at Paris Hilton because Osama blew up the WTC. :p

[foggedinn]

Actually, they're in effect giving it to all the deadbeat borrowers who never paid their loans back, and never will.

People borrowed money, they didn't pay it back. So everyone's mad at the BANKS?? That's like being mad at Paris Hilton because Osama blew up the WTC. :p

Sounds like a case of blame the victim. The borrowers, in large part, are still going to lose their homes. Some small number of them may be helped, but not many. Their credit is still going to be ruined.

I'm not even in agreement with the premise that the mortgage defaults are the primary cause of the credit crises. People tend to look for simple explanations that simple solutions can be applied to. The sub-prime fiasco is one of many causes of the current situation. If we deal with it as "the" cause of the credit meltdown, we'll be right back in the same situation,(only worse) in the very near future.

[Libsmasher]

Sounds like a case of blame the victim. The borrowers, in large part, are still going to lose their homes. Some small number of them may be helped, but not many. Their credit is still going to be ruined.

Let me get this straight: a lot of people took out loans they couldn't pay, betting on ever-rising home prices to cover their ass, something any dunce should know is economically impossible. As a result of their stupid gambling, they've clobbered the values of the houses of every responsible, bill-paying home-owner, and sent the country into financial crisis. And THEY are VICTIMS???!! Yeahhhhh, sure, right. :rolleyes:

I'm not even in agreement with the premise that the mortgage defaults are the primary cause of the credit crises. People tend to look for simple explanations that simple solutions can be applied to. The sub-prime fiasco is one of many causes of the current situation. If we deal with it as "the" cause of the credit meltdown, we'll be right back in the same situation,(only worse) in the very near future.

What dreck. Give me the list of reputable economists who agree with that. :rolleyes:

[PLC1]

This morning, El Rushbo was ranting about how the Democrats expected this $700 billion bailout to actually enrich the treasury when all of those bad loans were paid back, and how all of that unexpected money would fund Obama's new social programs.

Has anyone heard about anyone, Democrat or Republican, saying that the feds would actually make money on this deal? I haven't.

It would be great if he were right. Just think: That $2330 per person (not per taxpayer, as foggedinn pointed out) actually paying dividends back to the taxpayers! The federal bureaucracy could actually be fiscally responsible, and pay back the taxpayers with interest! Just imagine! Imagine pigs flying, Hell freezing, and San Francisco voting a straight Republican ticket. We can imagine anything, can't we?

[foggedinn]

Let me get this straight: a lot of people took out loans they couldn't pay, betting on ever-rising home prices to cover their ass, something any dunce should know is economically impossible. As a result of their stupid gambling, they've clobbered the values of the houses of every responsible, bill-paying home-owner, and sent the country into financial crisis. And THEY are VICTIMS???!! Yeahhhhh, sure, right. :rolleyes:




What dreck. Give me the list of reputable economists who agree with that. :rolleyes:

As one of those responsible, bill-paying, homeowners(payed off the mortgage 12 yrs ago), I'm grateful that I didn't run into one of these sleezy mortgage brokers 32 yrs ago.

The people who got sucked into these sub-prime mortgages were, for the most part, just trying to buy into the American dream of home ownership. The brokers who sold them these mortgages are, IMHO, a bunch of con men. As they then sold off these sub-prime mortgages to the financial genuses of Wall Street as investment grade securities, the financially ignorant first time home buyers didn't stand a chance.

Yes, they are the victims who got hit first and hardest. Because we failed to protect those least able to protect themselves from predatory lenders, you and I are victims too.

Man's first question to God as recorded in scripture was asked by Cain. "Am I my brother's keeper?" I was taught early on that God's reaction to Cain's question represented a very loud and unqualified YES!

As for your request that I supply you with a list of economist; do your own grunt work.

[BigRob]

As one of those responsible, bill-paying, homeowners(payed off the mortgage 12 yrs ago), I'm grateful that I didn't run into one of these sleezy mortgage brokers 32 yrs ago.

The people who got sucked into these sub-prime mortgages were, for the most part, just trying to buy into the American dream of home ownership. The brokers who sold them these mortgages are, IMHO, a bunch of con men. As they then sold off these sub-prime mortgages to the financial genuses of Wall Street as investment grade securities, the financially ignorant first time home buyers didn't stand a chance.

Yes, they are the victims who got hit first and hardest. Because we failed to protect those least able to protect themselves from predatory lenders, you and I are victims too.

Man's first question to God as recorded in scripture was asked by Cain. "Am I my brother's keeper?" I was taught early on that God's reaction to Cain's question represented a very loud and unqualified YES!

As for your request that I supply you with a list of economist; do your own grunt work.


You must realize how little people have learned from this whole experience.

Countless people are now calling for federal down payment assistance so they can purchase a home they have no business being in.

So if the loans you cannot afford go away, demand down payment assistance to get the same house you cannot afford. People never cease to be idiots.

[GenSeneca]

As one of those responsible, bill-paying, homeowners(payed off the mortgage 12 yrs ago), I'm grateful that I didn't run into one of these sleezy mortgage brokers 32 yrs ago.

Why? You can read... do you not read about the APR% on your credit cards? I bet you know what they are at and a Home Mortgage is by far more important to keep track of.

Please, provide us ONE example of someone who was actually conned into taking a Sub-Prime loan.... I haven't seen ONE example yet, despite the Media's efforts in finding one. Even if there were one, a single example would simply be anecdotal considering 96% of sub-prime borrowers are making their payments and just 4% have fallen into foreclosure.

Because we failed to protect those least able to protect themselves from predatory lenders, you and I are victims too.

Once again you give Government a pass:

The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?

According to one enforcement agency, "discrimination exists when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants." Note that these "arbitrary or outdated criteria" include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history--the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring. --Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html)

Barney Frank is the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
In 2003, Frank opposed Bush administration and Congressional Republican efforts for the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank#Chair_of_the_House_Financial_Services _Committee)
Fannie and Freddie were his personal play things and he rejected any attempt to reform the CRA regulations that lead to this crisis... even after it became public in 2005 that these companies were cooking the books and going the way of Enron, Frank denied and denounced the truth:

"These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank said. He added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Barney Frank still has his job... as well as all the money funneled to him through Fannie and Freddie - for Congressional services rendered. He's either horribly incompetent or, more likely, horribly corrupt.... either way, he should not be allowed to retain his position as Chairman of Financial Services - Much less remain in Congress! But he's a Democrat, he won't get jailtime, he will get re-elected.

[contained]

For some of these institutions the gov gets like an 80% market share. If things turn around then perhaps in some cases we can recover some of it. I dunno who the victim is.... the homeowner hedging, the bank hedging. Ultimately it's the bank's fault for loans without enough personal backing it would seem. Why would i loan $100 to a friend if there wasn't a good chance I'd get it back or telling him 'hey you will owe me a boatload in a couple of years for balloon payments'.

[Andy]

Sounds like a case of blame the victim. The borrowers, in large part, are still going to lose their homes. Some small number of them may be helped, but not many. Their credit is still going to be ruined.

So if you jump off the Sears Tower, and go splat on the pavement, your the victim? If you drive your car 100 mph in the rain, and hydroplane off the road into a tree... your the victim? If you eat McDonald's every day until your 600 lbs and die of heart attack... your the victim?

No, these people are not victims. They made a direct thought out choice to borrow money that they could not pay back. Their credit is ruined, and should be. They did the deed, and it rightfully should go on their record. And in all honesty, if they are being foreclosed on... maybe they shouldn't be using credit anyway... ya think? I have no problem with someone who can't afford a home to lose it. I have no clue how you can look at someone, trying to buy something they can't afford, and getting caught on it, as being a victim.

I'd wager good money if a buddy of yours borrowed a chunk of cash from you, blew it all, and couldn't pay you back, you wouldn't be thinking awww... he's just a victim.

I'm not even in agreement with the premise that the mortgage defaults are the primary cause of the credit crises. People tend to look for simple explanations that simple solutions can be applied to. The sub-prime fiasco is one of many causes of the current situation. If we deal with it as "the" cause of the credit meltdown, we'll be right back in the same situation,(only worse) in the very near future.

Well duh... the problem is people borrowing money. Don't borrow money and you'll never get caught in a 'credit meltdown'. It's very simple.... people who don't borrow money, don't end up in bankruptcy. Please don't tell me you can't survive without borrowing money either, our nation thrived for nearly 200 years when 'credit' didn't exist.

China is booming, and the idea of borrowing is nearly non-existent. In fact I wager that's one of the reasons China is growing at the massive rate it is. Business don't have burden of paying interest on the credit they use to run. People don't have monthly payments causing them to live paycheck to paycheck.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Funny how Libs and Gen think that banks should lend to anyone and that losses due to default are just the responsiblity of the debtor.

I suppose they are the type of people who would lend money to a stranger in the street who promised to pay them back tomorrow and then be surpirsed when the person didn't show up.

Well actually I don't suppose that because the meanness of spirit they display suggests that they wouldn't even lend money to themsleves.

[Andy]

This morning, El Rushbo was ranting about how the Democrats expected this $700 billion bailout to actually enrich the treasury when all of those bad loans were paid back, and how all of that unexpected money would fund Obama's new social programs.

Has anyone heard about anyone, Democrat or Republican, saying that the feds would actually make money on this deal? I haven't.

Actually yes I have. The AIG bail out, is really just a socialist take over. It's not a bail out because in the long run, the contracts AIG has are still worth as much as they ever were. The problem is the accounting standards the government enforces, has changed how those contracts are valued on a budget.

In other words, the 'loses' companies are posting, are all on paper. In reality, no actual money has been lost. But because budgets are what get posted to share holders, and because share holders cause the price of company stocks to go up or down, the company has lost stock value, and this is what government is banking on.

Their going to take over this company, whose value dropped due to their own policies, and then reap the benefit of the assets and future contracts the company has.

It would be great if he were right. Just think: That $2330 per person (not per taxpayer, as foggedinn pointed out) actually paying dividends back to the taxpayers! The federal bureaucracy could actually be fiscally responsible, and pay back the taxpayers with interest! Just imagine! Imagine pigs flying, Hell freezing, and San Francisco voting a straight Republican ticket. We can imagine anything, can't we?

Let's assume he is right. Here's what is going to happen. Government is going to loot the company and take the "wind-fall profits" and blow them on government programs which won't help anyone, or at most a special selected few voting groups, and of course pay backs to political supporters. For Obama that would be Chase and Goldman Sachs. Of course, no one is going to get a dividend check, and Federal government will never be 'responsible'.

Even when Bill Clinton raided Social Security to make it look like he had 'balanced the budget' even when we were actually borrowing more money than ever... what did they do with the supposed 'surplus'? Savings? Pay off debt? Nope, they spent it on crap. Obama will do the same.

[Andy]

Funny how Libs and Gen think that banks should lend to anyone and that losses due to default are just the responsiblity of the debtor.

I suppose they are the type of people who would lend money to a stranger in the street who promised to pay them back tomorrow and then be surpirsed when the person didn't show up.

Well actually I don't suppose that because the meanness of spirit they display suggests that they wouldn't even lend money to themsleves.

You just lied. When did anyone say that banks should lend to anyone? I never supported this. I don't support excusing people of responsibility for their choices either. If you choose to shoot yourself in the foot, I don't think others should pay for your hospital stay. Nor do I think if you borrow money that you can't afford to pay back, that we should bail you out, or that your credit shouldn't be harmed.

It is mean to not want to pay for other peoples choices? You know, about 5 years ago, I borrowed a ton of money I couldn't pay back. I have spent the last 5 years dealing with that mistake. If you are not mean spirited, then I'd like you to pay off the remaining $1,500 I owe. Please send a check, made out to me. If you don't pay off my debt, you are not only mean spirited, and also a hypocrite and a jerk. Are you going to literally put your money where your mouth is, or not? I fully expect you to pay my debt now, by virtue of how you treat people here and the statements you've made.

you can contact me on MSN at aekleber@yahoo.com, I'll give you my home address so you can send the check. If you are a man of your word, then you had better pay. If not, then I know what kind of hypocrite I am talking with.

[vyo476]

So if you jump off the Sears Tower, and go splat on the pavement, your the victim? If you drive your car 100 mph in the rain, and hydroplane off the road into a tree... your the victim? If you eat McDonald's every day until your 600 lbs and die of heart attack... your the victim?

Yes, yes, and yes, although not in the way you're thinking.

No, these people are not victims. They made a direct thought out choice to borrow money that they could not pay back. Their credit is ruined, and should be. They did the deed, and it rightfully should go on their record. And in all honesty, if they are being foreclosed on... maybe they shouldn't be using credit anyway... ya think? I have no problem with someone who can't afford a home to lose it. I have no clue how you can look at someone, trying to buy something they can't afford, and getting caught on it, as being a victim.

Look closer. Look at people's families. Look at people who've never had a whole lot, who just wanted to have a house of their own.

These people are victims of circumstance. Yes, they're victims of their own actions - but those actions are the result of something. It's simplistic to look at them and just say, "Well, that's it, then."

That isn't to say that they should not have to deal with the consequences of their actions. They should. But at the same time, those of us who are in better positions should have a heart and not turn up our noses at them. Everyone messes up.

Well duh... the problem is people borrowing money. Don't borrow money and you'll never get caught in a 'credit meltdown'. It's very simple.... people who don't borrow money, don't end up in bankruptcy. Please don't tell me you can't survive without borrowing money either, our nation thrived for nearly 200 years when 'credit' didn't exist.

I'm afraid there are a lot of people out there without your financial acumen. When told the exact opposite of what you just said, they'd believe it. And as a result...here we are.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Andy, are you Libs and Gen?

I have often suspected schizophrenia but this is a new dimension.

The banks have a duty to lend cautiously.

They know more about how money works and how people deafult than the borrowers do.

And when they throw caution to the wind and lend recklessly they are effectively putting all their money on zero.

It might come up and the pay off will be big but you know you will probably lose the lot.

[Andy]

Yes, yes, and yes, although not in the way you're thinking.

No, not in any way.

Look closer. Look at people's families. Look at people who've never had a whole lot, who just wanted to have a house of their own.

These people are victims of circumstance. Yes, they're victims of their own actions - but those actions are the result of something. It's simplistic to look at them and just say, "Well, that's it, then."

That isn't to say that they should not have to deal with the consequences of their actions. They should.

First, you assume much about the 'people's families'. Some perhaps, but I know of quite a few that make pretty good money. They simple flat out, no excuses, got a loan for more house than they could afford. That's it. Many had homes before this, and they though well gee I can want that $350,000 home over there... and they can't afford that.

I know a guy right now... that bought more house than he can afford. He told me... well I'll be earning more soon. No no no... when you are earning more, then buy a house that expensive. If he loses his job, or gets sick, or if anything at all happens, he's going to be in foreclosure. Honestly, he might end up in foreclosure if nothing happens. He simply can't afford this house. Now I hope he does start earning more, but he has NO ONE to blame if he ends up broke.

But at the same time, those of us who are in better positions should have a heart and not turn up our noses at them. Everyone messes up.

This isn't about turning up our noses. This isn't about how we relate to people on a personal level. I have a friend who came here from Somalia and has no family. I fixed their car when it broke. I paid for their move when they changed apartments. I paid for the rental truck, and I did many other things. But they didn't 'expect' me to bail them out. Nor did they demand it from me.

A government bail out, is the absolute compulsory confiscation of ones money for pay off for another's choices. It's wrong, immoral, and unethical. It's not being caring, it's being a tyrant. You don't see politicians giving their own money to these people. No, they steal it from others and give it out. Obama was in the top 5% of wage earners in the entire country. You think he's giving his money to bail these people out? Not a chance. He's going to take it from us, the tax payers.

[Andy]

Andy, are you Libs and Gen?

Are you Dawkins?

I have often suspected schizophrenia but this is a new dimension.

I've suspected hypocrisy, and you've never disappointed me.

The banks have a duty to lend cautiously.

Oh shocking news. Thanks for coming on and telling us the obvious.

They know more about how money works and how people deafult than the borrowers do.

No excuses please. Are you telling me that YOU do not know that when you borrow money, that you must pay it back monthly by an amount normally in correlation to how much was borrowed? Are you saying that if you earned $20-$40 thousand a year, you would not know that you can't afford a $200K to $400K dollar home? What, is basic math too hard?

And when they throw caution to the wind and lend recklessly they are effectively putting all their money on zero.

It might come up and the pay off will be big but you know you will probably lose the lot.

No kidding? Really?

This is irrelevant. No one said the banks should lend to everyone. No one suggested the banks should not take a loss. Why do you think I'm against the bail out? We should not bail out anyone for anything. We should bail out the people who got the loan they couldn't repay, and we should bail out the bank that gave the loan.

That said, you still claimed it was "mean" to not want to bail people out of their mistakes, so I want the money you owe me by your own words. Put your money where your mouth is, and pay off my debt. Are you hypocrite or not? How about you just admit to being a hypocrite. We both know you are not going to follow through with what you claim to believe. I'm going to refer to you as hypocrite from here on.

[Dawkinsrocks]

You just sound stupid

[PLC1]

Actually yes I have. The AIG bail out, is really just a socialist take over. It's not a bail out because in the long run, the contracts AIG has are still worth as much as they ever were. The problem is the accounting standards the government enforces, has changed how those contracts are valued on a budget.

In other words, the 'loses' companies are posting, are all on paper. In reality, no actual money has been lost. But because budgets are what get posted to share holders, and because share holders cause the price of company stocks to go up or down, the company has lost stock value, and this is what government is banking on.

Their going to take over this company, whose value dropped due to their own policies, and then reap the benefit of the assets and future contracts the company has.



Let's assume he is right. Here's what is going to happen. Government is going to loot the company and take the "wind-fall profits" and blow them on government programs which won't help anyone, or at most a special selected few voting groups, and of course pay backs to political supporters. For Obama that would be Chase and Goldman Sachs. Of course, no one is going to get a dividend check, and Federal government will never be 'responsible'.

Even when Bill Clinton raided Social Security to make it look like he had 'balanced the budget' even when we were actually borrowing more money than ever... what did they do with the supposed 'surplus'? Savings? Pay off debt? Nope, they spent it on crap. Obama will do the same.

Unfortunately, I think you're right about much of what you are saying.

If the "socialization" of AIG pays dividends to the government, which is a big if, then the feds will most likely blow it on government spending rather than try to pay down the debt, build infrastructure, or anything that will actually be a benefit to the country.

You seem to be picking out Democratic presidents as big spenders, however. Do you seriously think that it will be different if McCain gets elected? Even if the Republicans make a comeback in the Congress, will the outcome be any different?

You mention Clinton as the raider of SS, but didn't every president since LBJ do the same, both Republicans and Democrats? Bush II raided $177 billion from that fund in '07, after all, and still wound up borrowing another $300 billion to run the federal bureaucracy.

Neither party is the party of small government and fiscal responsibility.

[Not Amused]

Sounds like a case of blame the victim. The borrowers, in large part, are still going to lose their homes. Some small number of them may be helped, but not many. Their credit is still going to be ruined.

I'm not even in agreement with the premise that the mortgage defaults are the primary cause of the credit crises. People tend to look for simple explanations that simple solutions can be applied to. The sub-prime fiasco is one of many causes of the current situation. If we deal with it as "the" cause of the credit meltdown, we'll be right back in the same situation,(only worse) in the very near future.

You made a very valid point here I feel.

What Libsmasher fails to take into account is this:

When first time buyers for example approach a mortgage broker or bank etc to take out a mortgage, they often have little knowledge (especially young couples) of how the housing market works.

So they tend to take the higher authority (banks, mortgage brokers) at their word. One could always, (until the last decade or so) trust the word of ones bank manager, the absolute epitome of respectability, this is still unfortunately, how many see such institutions.

If a bank, or mortgage broker tells a first time buyer that they can in fact afford the mortgage on a specific home, who are they to argue?

One naively (first time buyers especially) assumes that the financial industry knows how to calculate, re: basic maths at the very least.

Of course, in an ideal world such first time buyers will have done their homework, will understand how basic finance works (or should work), but unfortunately, many are totally unaware for the most part.

This situation has been responsible for many buyers being lulled into a false sense of security. It is wholly unjust to place the blame on the buyer alone.

There are multiple reasons why the proposed solution President Bush advocates cannot work long term (although I quite understand why he (his admin) has resorted to such measures).

This injection of money to save banks etc. (whose practices over the last decade have, let us not be mistaken, been quite, quite dreadful and without doubt fueled by obscene greed) can only stave off a crash for a period of time, common sense dictates this to be so in my personal opinion.

By economically propping up a flagging housing market, the tax payer is supporting a system of hugely over inflated real-estate prices, whether this system has worked to his/her personal economic advantage or not.

This in itself seems morally inexcusable, as the one tangible thing people really need is a roof over their heads.

Apart from that, you can see that the measures proposed, in terms of the real estate correction, means a crash is simply being 'staved off'

Without similar 'creative' debt devices kicking off this whole cycle once more, a large sector of the populace will simply find themselves unable to afford any sort of roof over their head.

Additionally, higher real-estate prices coupled with higher taxation to pay off the proposed 'bail-out bill', will reduce the consumers economic capacity to consume .. which equates to approx 75% of the economy.

To add further 'fuel' to the fire, the cost of all types of domestic fuel and food seem to be, despite the occasional drop, continuing their upward trend.

Although these are consumer items, they're never going to lead to sustainable economic growth, that is fact.

You cannot simply go on increasing personal debt without a corresponding increase in salaries (salaries have barely risen in the last decade).

If the sump is emptying faster than it's filling, then the sump will run dry, to me this is obvious. So debt is not a possibility for continued increases in consumption, since eventually, not only will the individual be faced with the prospect of never being able to pay off his/her debts, but they won't even be able to afford to even service the debts any more.

This leaves the consumer with his/her ever shrinking disposable income to carry on consuming with.

Taxes, real-estate, fuel, food, current debt levels and an all but stagnant income, means this is an ever dwindling resource.

With the consumer, left with little or no economic capacity to consume, the impact on the economy is of course, reduced demand, which means reduced employment (in the retail sector especially), which means a downward lever on salaries, which means less economic capacity to consume ... 'hello vicious circle, hello tail-spin'.

Each person in the US will have to pay extra taxes to pay off this enormous debt on top of the gigantic debt you are already sitting upon, this equates to even less disposable income.

The markets have to be allowed to correct, if you stave it off, it just means even more financial heartache further down the line.

[Libsmasher]

You made a very valid point here I feel.

Not going to respond to the counter-argument I made? :) Generally we leave the cheerleading posts here to Top Gun.

What Libsmasher fails to take into account is this:

When first time buyers for example approach a mortgage broker or bank etc to take out a mortgage, they often have little knowledge (especially young couples) of how the housing market works.

So they tend to take the higher authority (banks, mortgage brokers) at their word. One could always, (until the last decade or so) trust the word of ones bank manager, the absolute epitome of respectability, this is still unfortunately, how many see such institutions.

If a bank, or mortgage broker tells a first time buyer that they can in fact afford the mortgage on a specific home, who are they to argue?

One naively (first time buyers especially) assumes that the financial industry knows how to calculate, re: basic maths at the very least.

Of course, in an ideal world such first time buyers will have done their homework, will understand how basic finance works (or should work), but unfortunately, many are totally unaware for the most part.

What a load of BS. When I was ready to buy a house, I didn't know squat about any aspect of it. The first thing I did is read THREE books on home financing - I knew it backwards and forwards. When I encountered sales people who didn't know their stuff, I dropped them like a rock. In my current home that I bought new, I demanded to know the history of any toxic dumps in the area. I checked US geological survey maps to see what the earth quake zones were, and what the historical flooding info was (I live on a 500 year flood plain). I demanded to do a radon test before I would take possession. I read the covenants. conditions, and restrictions from beginning to end, and it is 50 pages. I warned lenders that I didn't want conditions such as pre-payment penalties. Before I moved in, me and the gf went over the house with a microscope eye and got a few minor issues corrected. I came from 50 miles away almost every weekend during the building phase and checked what was going on in my house. At one point, after checking the tract blueprints, I and a neighbor-to-be discovered that the houses were supposed to have pantries that didn't seem like they were being built. The salesperson tried to handwave it away, but we went to see the construction supervisor, and he agreed we were right. I've never signed a document I haven't read and understood. I ask lots of questions and demand real answers.

Sooooooo ..... wanna go through life like a trusting moron and get taken advantage of? Then you'll deserve what you get. One of my favorite ideas about trust was on the signs of old-time diners: "In God we trust - all others pay cash."

[Not Amused]

Not going to respond to the counter-argument I made? :) Generally we leave the cheerleading posts here to Top Gun.



What a load of BS. When I was ready to buy a house, I didn't know squat about any aspect of it. The first thing I did is read THREE books on home financing - I knew it backwards and forwards. When I encountered sales people who didn't know their stuff, I dropped them like a rock. In my current home that I bought new, I demanded to know the history of any toxic dumps in the area. I checked US geological survey maps to see what the earth quake zones were, and what the historical flooding info was (I live on a 500 year flood plain). I demanded to do a radon test before I would take possession. I read the covenants. conditions, and restrictions from beginning to end, and it is 50 pages. I warned lenders that I didn't want conditions such as pre-payment penalties. Before I moved in, me and the gf went over the house with a microscope eye and got a few minor issues corrected. I came from 50 miles away almost every weekend during the building phase and checked what was going on in my house. At one point, after checking the tract blueprints, I and a neighbor-to-be discovered that the houses were supposed to have pantries that didn't seem like they were being built. The salesperson tried to handwave it away, but we went to see the construction supervisor, and he agreed we were right. I've never signed a document I haven't read and understood. I ask lots of questions and demand real answers.

Sooooooo ..... wanna go through life like a trusting moron and get taken advantage of? Then you'll deserve what you get. One of my favorite ideas about trust was on the signs of old-time diners: "In God we trust - all others pay cash."

Thank you for the very long, 'all about me' post (such self obsession by the way is rarely interesting to the reader).

You really do appear to act like you are GOD to be honest, a nasty little sin on your part if I may say so.

Such a bitter and almost bordering on hysterical denunciation of everyone for not being as intelligent and as superior as you clearly think you are, is rather disturbing.

Just because YOU do, or did all of the above, does not mean that a section of vulnerable people who do,or did not, are lesser persons than yourself.

Your black and white attitude appears to suggest you have a very parocial mentality and are an extremely bitter person.

It appears to prevent you from seeing that for all the 'stupidity' displayed by the consumer, equal if not more stupidity and recklessness was shown by those who are supposed to know better and for all intents and purposes to abide by and carry out a clear code of practice, aka the finance industry.

Your taxes will not save the 'stupid' consumer, but they will be used to ensure that asses of the grubby little crooks who are ultimately responsible for this God awful mess can remain temporarily solvent and maybe even make another short term killing out of the ultimate misery of others.

I am sick and tired dealing with little ****s, who preside over their own little worlds, that consist of me, me and only me, who do not know their ass from their elbow when you get to the bones of it, who are all bloody noise, all bloody mouth and absolutely no bloody trousers.

It is people with your mindset, who enabled such grubby little crooks to flourish in the bloody first place. Uneducated, insular dickheads and complete knobs, pure and simple.

[GenSeneca]

Pickin on Libs... Why don't you guys pick on someone your own size?
Oh wait, you already are... :rolleyes:

I laid out the TRUTH and the Left has avoided it like the plauge, prefering to attack Libs and his knee-jerk diatribes:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=63180&postcount=9

Government imposed the CRA on Banks, Barney Frank and his fellow Democrats are the ones who refused to enforce standards or reform the system.... All involved should be run out of Congress but instead you guys want to give everyone with a (D) in front of their name a big 'ol pass, a slap on the back for doing a great job, and grant them continually increasing power in our Government.

[Not Amused]

Pickin on Libs... Why don't you guys pick on someone your own size?
Oh wait, you already are... :rolleyes:

I laid out the TRUTH and the Left has avoided it like the plauge, prefering to attack Libs and his knee-jerk diatribes:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=63180&postcount=9

Government imposed the CRA on Banks, Barney Frank and his fellow Democrats are the ones who refused to enforce standards or reform the system.... All involved should be run out of Congress but instead you guys want to give everyone with a (D) in front of their name a big 'ol pass, a slap on the back for doing a great job, and grant them continually increasing power in our Government.

I am not 'The Left' for a start and the little **** deserves all the 'controlled' venom I threw/spat in his direction, he hasn't got a bloody clue.

[PLC1]

Pickin on Libs... Why don't you guys pick on someone your own size?
Oh wait, you already are... :rolleyes:

I laid out the TRUTH and the Left has avoided it like the plauge, prefering to attack Libs and his knee-jerk diatribes:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=63180&postcount=9

Government imposed the CRA on Banks, Barney Frank and his fellow Democrats are the ones who refused to enforce standards or reform the system.... All involved should be run out of Congress but instead you guys want to give everyone with a (D) in front of their name a big 'ol pass, a slap on the back for doing a great job, and grant them continually increasing power in our Government.


Yes, you laid it out quite well. If one follows your links, this emerges:

in 2003, Frank opposed Bush administration and Congressional Republican efforts for the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis.[28] Under the plan a new agency would have been created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. "These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank said. He added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."[28]

So, no, the Democrats can hardly be said to have made the right decisions in this case.

As I already pointed out in another thread, McCain warned about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mack three years ago, and tried to get legislation passed to prevent the collapse then.

But, I also went back and looked at the posts on this thread, and don't see anyone giving the Democrats a pass, certainly not Libsmasher?:confused:

Of course, Libs knee jerk diatribes are easy enough to attack.

[Not Amused]

Yes, you laid it out quite well. If one follows your links, this emerges:


So, no, the Democrats can hardly be said to have made the right decisions in this case.

As I already pointed out in another thread, McCain warned about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mack three years ago, and tried to get legislation passed to prevent the collapse then.

But, I also went back and looked at the posts on this thread, and don't see anyone giving the Democrats a pass, certainly not Libsmasher?:confused:

Of course, Libs knee jerk diatribes are easy enough to attack.

I didn't attack the little **** because it was easy, I attacked the little **** because he does'nt have a clue.

It also makes me smile when people such as yourself and Gensenca use the very real possibility of the US going right down the proverbial pan with all the resulting implications and repercussions to try to score partisan political points. That is almost as stupid as some of Lib's posts.

I presume you do understand the gravity of the situation you find yourselves in?

You do realise that you are actually sitting on the edge of a massive black hole?

I wonder you see, because it appears that what's ultimately consuming you is finding any opportunity to blame the opposition.

You buffoons are ripe for another raping if the truth be told. Get a grip for ****s sake.

[PLC1]

I didn't attack the little **** because it was easy, I attacked the little **** because he does'nt have a clue.

It also makes me smile when people such as yourself and Gensenca use the very real possibility of the US going right down the proverbial pan with all the resulting implications and repercussions to try to score partisan political points. That is almost as stupid as some of Lib's posts.

Which party did you think I was trying to score partisan points for?

The current mess is a bi partisan mess, with a bipartisan squabble over how best to fix it. A Republican president being opposed by Republicans in the House, while Democrats are for his ideas is quite an interesting development, don't you think?

And when Genseca posts:

All involved should be run out of Congress but instead you guys want to give everyone with a (D) in front of their name a big 'ol pass, a slap on the back for doing a great job, and grant them continually increasing power in our Government.

and I take the time to point out that his statement is a huge straw man, as no one actually said that everyone with a D in front of their name has been given a pass, how is that scoring partisan points?

Actually, I do agree that all involved need to be run out of Congress, but I don't give a rat's *** what letter follows their name. Personally, I'd like to fire the lot of them and start over. The federal government is broke, and it is broken, and needs to be seriously pared back and revised.

Is that a Democratic value, or a Republican one? I'm really not sure.

[Not Amused]

I apologise to you PLC. I totally misread your motives here, that was remiss of me and also due to frustration and anger on my part.

As far as Gensenca is concerned my original stance remains.

[PLC1]

I apologise to you PLC. I totally misread your motives here, that was remiss of me and also due to frustration and anger on my part.

As far as Gensenca is concerned my original stance remains.

Whew. Having read what you posted about Libsmasher, I didn't want to incur your wrath.

I was the opposite of your screen name reading that post, BTW, and am anxiously awaiting his response.

[Mr. Carpenter]

I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Every year, we already spend about $5,000.00 for every man, woman, and child in America supplementing "handout" programs, to support less than 10% of the population, who refuse to even try to support themselves. The difference in this case is that even if they do go for the entire $700 billion (which I strongly oppose), at the very least they're preventing the economy from going all the way down the toilet because the Democrats, going all the way back to FDR, decided that stealing money from one person and giving it to someone else wasn't really stealing if they said it was in the interest of "fairness".

Maybe one day I'll find someone who can explain to me how stealing from me to support people who won't even try to support themselves is a "good" thing.

[BigRob]

Thank you for the very long, 'all about me' post (such self obsession by the way is rarely interesting to the reader).

You really do appear to act like you are GOD to be honest, a nasty little sin on your part if I may say so.

If Lib made good decisions during his house purchase came out ahead of the game I have no idea why this makes you upset. Further, he certainly should not apologize to anyone for it.


Such a bitter and almost bordering on hysterical denunciation of everyone for not being as intelligent and as superior as you clearly think you are, is rather disturbing.

I did not realize you had to be a genius to realize it was important to read what you signed. Especially when it involved something as large as, you know, buying a house.


Just because YOU do, or did all of the above, does not mean that a section of vulnerable people who do,or did not, are lesser persons than yourself.

No one thinks they are "lesser people" but they certainly do not deserve special treatment for making a bad decision. The same people who took out bad loans and are now defaulting because they cannot afford their house, are now demanding down payment assistance from the government so they can purchase another house they cannot afford. I am sorry, but if you do that, you are an idiot.


It appears to prevent you from seeing that for all the 'stupidity' displayed by the consumer, equal if not more stupidity and recklessness was shown by those who are supposed to know better and for all intents and purposes to abide by and carry out a clear code of practice, aka the finance industry.

The job of a business is to make money. They gambled, they lost. They should go out of business for it. Many of them already have. Why anyone goes into a business deal thinking that the business is not there to make money is beyond me.


Your taxes will not save the 'stupid' consumer, but they will be used to ensure that asses of the grubby little crooks who are ultimately responsible for this God awful mess can remain temporarily solvent and maybe even make another short term killing out of the ultimate misery of others.

Saving these companies by extension saves the consumer.

You are the one who sounds bitter here, a company exists to make money. Why is that bad? I also am unsure of what it is that keeps you from making a killing right along with them?


I am sick and tired dealing with little ****s, who preside over their own little worlds, that consist of me, me and only me, who do not know their ass from their elbow when you get to the bones of it, who are all bloody noise, all bloody mouth and absolutely no bloody trousers.

It is people with your mindset, who enabled such grubby little crooks to flourish in the bloody first place. Uneducated, insular dickheads and complete knobs, pure and simple.

Maybe if we had more of a "me" mentality, people would bother to read their loan papers...

[Mr. Carpenter]

I am sick and tired dealing with little ****s, who preside over their own little worlds, that consist of me, me and only me, who do not know their ass from their elbow when you get to the bones of it, who are all bloody noise, all bloody mouth and absolutely no bloody trousers.

It is people with your mindset, who enabled such grubby little crooks to flourish in the bloody first place. Uneducated, insular dickheads and complete knobs, pure and simple.

Pardon me, but are you a subject of the Crown? If so, why are you concerned about our economic problems to the point that you'd be this emotional?

[GenSeneca]

But, I also went back and looked at the posts on this thread, and don't see anyone giving the Democrats a pass

People are trying to shift blame to the Republicans and Bush - That's giving the Democrats a pass in my book... That's also why I made the claim that those with a (D) are getting a pass, because of the scapegoating that's taking place.

BTW, if pointing this out constitutes a Strawman... Then please quote one of our resident Lefties - from any topic anywhere on the forum - where they say a Democrat needs to be held accountable for his misdeeds and/or ineptitude. Seems to me, only the Republicans care enough to hold their representatives accountable.

Additionally, I too agreed this was a Bi-partisan failure and people from both parties need to be held to account and forced out of their political office (With or without criminal charges being filed against them).

[Mr. Carpenter]

Who invented Fannie Mae? FDR (D) and his "New Deal".

Who privitized Fannie Mae, and then gave us Freddie Mac? Johnson (D) and his "Great Society".

Who essentially deregulated both of them? Franklin Raines (D) on the orders of Clinton (D).

Any more questions?

[Andy]

I just realized that "not amused", in all 4 of his rant-n-rave-athon posts, never once answered the point Libsmasher made. Not even once. Oh wait... that's because he can't! Which is why he ranted and raved.

Nvm, I figured it out. Later.

[Not Amused]

Pardon me, but are you a subject of the Crown? If so, why are you concerned about our economic problems to the point that you'd be this emotional?

Your ineptitude completely takes my breath away. Then some naive people wonder why I am getting angry.

Saving these companies by extension saves the consumer.

You are the one who sounds bitter here, a company exists to make money. Why is that bad?

I also am unsure of what it is that keeps you from making a killing right along with them?

Yet another ****wit with a parochial mentality. I never once said making money per se was bad.

You know what, some of you have your heads stuck so far up your own asses, have such a narrow outlook, are so wrapped up in scoring partisan political points and some sort of infantile blame game, to the point where you really can't see the wood for the trees, you actually really do deserve everything that is coming your way financially.

The greatest pity in all of this is that you can't just **** Off and drown in your own downward spiral without sucking other countries into your inevitable financial demise.

It's no wonder people like Dawkins continually takes the complete piss out of you. That really is easy. I'm done with this.

[BigRob]

You know what, some of you have your heads stuck so far up your own asses, have such a narrow outlook, are so wrapped up in scoring partisan political points and some sort of infantile blame game, to the point where you really can't see the wood for the trees, you actually really do deserve everything that is coming your way financially.

Please show me in my above post where I "blamed" anyone or brought up "partisan politics." I did not do it, you are inserting it.


The greatest pity in all of this is that you can't just **** Off and drown in your own downward spiral without sucking other countries into your inevitable financial demise.

It's no wonder people like Dawkins continually takes the complete piss out of you. That really is easy. I'm done with this.

I do not respond to Dawkins because there is no logic to his posts. I do not even read them. You can be "done with this" all you want, but you inserted the politics, not me. You are also the bitter sounding one in this conversation.

[Andy]

Your ineptitude completely takes my breath away. Then some naive people wonder why I am getting angry.

Bitter and arrogant. I don't wonder.

Yet another ****wit with a parochial mentality.

You are not convincing anyone with these lame and false, statements.

You know what, some of you have your heads stuck so far up your own asses, have such a narrow outlook, are so wrapped up in scoring partisan political points and some sort of infantile blame game, to the point where you really can't see the wood for the trees, you actually really do deserve everything that is coming your way financially.

I didn't borrow more than I can afford to pay, so I'm not losing my home. Plus, my company is making more money now, than ever before, so I'm not going to lose my job. Maybe the one with a narrow outlook, is you?

The greatest pity in all of this is that you can't just **** Off and drown in your own downward spiral without sucking other countries into your inevitable financial demise.

We're selling our products in China as we speak. It doesn't look to me like we're sucking them down. In fact, they are moving towards Capitalism and reaping huge rewards. We're moving towards socialism, and our economy is barely going.

It's no wonder people like Dawkins continually takes the complete piss out of you. That really is easy. I'm done with this.

LOL! I laughed when I read this! Of all people Dawkins is the one who never makes a logical statement, never backs up his statements with any evidence or data, and makes sweeping generalizations of everyone on this forum unless they completely agree with his unsupportable claims. If there is any joke on this forum, it's him. The fact you support him, makes you funny too! :)

Of course I expect as much. This is all the left has. The right comes up with fact and figures and historical examples. The left comes up with... well posts like this where they randomly attack others, spew insults and so on.

[Mr. Carpenter]

Your ineptitude completely takes my breath away. Then some naive people wonder why I am getting angry.

Ineptitude? Are you familiar with the definition of that word? You are the one who used distinctly British colloquialisms throughout the post I referenced, as I remember them fondly from my time there. Now, I was perfectly polite, and asked you a very simple question, which you have failed to answer, so let's try this again; are you now, or have you ever been a Subject of the British Crown?

Frankly, from what I've read thus far, you remind me of a union worker; you hate your job, and the company you work for, but you're scared to death that someone who is smarter and harder working (like a robot) will come along and take it from you.

[Andy]

Ineptitude? Are you familiar with the definition of that word? You are the one who used distinctly British colloquialisms throughout the post I referenced, as I remember them fondly from my time there. Now, I was perfectly polite, and asked you a very simple question, which you have failed to answer, so let's try this again; are you now, or have you ever been a Subject of the British Crown?

Frankly, from what I've read thus far, you remind me of a union worker; you hate your job, and the company you work for, but you're scared to death that someone who is smarter and harder working (like a robot) will come along and take it from you.

Like a robot!! LOL!

[Not Amused]

Bitter and arrogant. I don't wonder.



You are not convincing anyone with these lame and false, statements.



I didn't borrow more than I can afford to pay, so I'm not losing my home. Plus, my company is making more money now, than ever before, so I'm not going to lose my job. Maybe the one with a narrow outlook, is you?



We're selling our products in China as we speak. It doesn't look to me like we're sucking them down. In fact, they are moving towards Capitalism and reaping huge rewards. We're moving towards socialism, and our economy is barely going.



LOL! I laughed when I read this! Of all people Dawkins is the one who never makes a logical statement, never backs up his statements with any evidence or data, and makes sweeping generalizations of everyone on this forum unless they completely agree with his unsupportable claims. If there is any joke on this forum, it's him. The fact you support him, makes you funny too! :)

Of course I expect as much. This is all the left has. The right comes up with fact and figures and historical examples. The left comes up with... well posts like this where they randomly attack others, spew insults and so on.

Total Ineptitude once again **** Wit. I am neither part of the left, nor right.

You make wild assumptions because you are indeed a ****Wit.

Nothing within my posts or my reaction to situations suggest to anyone other than a complete **** Wit that I am a liberal.

What I am attacking is the wholesale stupidity and ****wittedness of so many within this forum.

Is it any wonder I appear arrogant to you? The amusing aspect here is that your ****wittedness enables me to be positively brimming with arrogance.

You have absolutely no real economic discernment, if you had, you would fully understand that borrowers are not responsible for your precarious position and that a bailout will not fix the problems of a broken economic structure.

Neither do you have the capacity, to actually understand when someone is making a hell of a good job of subtly making you all look like a bunch of brainless assholes.

Dawkin uses you all. The irony being, that you actually also enable him/her to feel intellectually superior to all of you, just by your kindergarten reaction to his/her posts, which are displayed openly for all to witness.

But there we are, many parochial Americans don't know how to keep their pie holes shut at all, let alone at the right time.

Your personal, overwhelming vanity prevents you from ignoring him/her when you should, therefore Dawkins makes you look like the bunch of ****Wits you really are.

Oh by the way, I am not bitter. Just extremely angry that the rest of the world have only American Ineptitude, no doubt akin to the ineptitude witnessed by myself within this forum as an answer to the huge financial crisis the US has placed itself into, along with the repercussions the rest of the western world will have to suffer.

I bid you adieu assholes.

[Mr. Carpenter]

My my, I am SO impressed by the faux intellectualism, and utter mindlessness of the socialist mind...NOT!

[BigRob]

You have absolutely no real economic discernment, if you had, you would fully understand that borrowers are not responsible for your precarious position and that a bailout will not fix the problems of a broken economic structure.

I am pretty sure Andy, among many others here are completely against the bailout.


Neither do you have the capacity, to actually understand when someone is making a hell of a good job of subtly making you all look like a bunch of brainless assholes.

Dawkin uses you all. The irony being, that you actually also enable him/her to feel intellectually superior to all of you, just by your kindergarten reaction to his/her posts, which are displayed openly for all to witness.

No logical evidence is hardly "using" anyone. But I no longer read his posts, maybe they got better.


Oh by the way, I am not bitter. Just extremely angry that the rest of the world have only American Ineptitude, no doubt akin to the ineptitude witnessed by myself within this forum as an answer to the huge financial crisis the US has placed itself into, along with the repercussions the rest of the western world will have to suffer.

I bid you adieu assholes.

All this vanity about responding, yet you continue to respond.

Sorry that you must suffer, but many people who do actually understand the market are making a lot of money right now. Sorry that you are not.

[PLC1]

Total Ineptitude once again **** Wit. I am neither part of the left, nor right.

You make wild assumptions because you are indeed a ****Wit.

Nothing within my posts or my reaction to situations suggest to anyone other than a complete **** Wit that I am a liberal.

What I am attacking is the wholesale stupidity and ****wittedness of so many within this forum.

Is it any wonder I appear arrogant to you? The amusing aspect here is that your ****wittedness enables me to be positively brimming with arrogance.

You have absolutely no real economic discernment, if you had, you would fully understand that borrowers are not responsible for your precarious position and that a bailout will not fix the problems of a broken economic structure.

Neither do you have the capacity, to actually understand when someone is making a hell of a good job of subtly making you all look like a bunch of brainless assholes.

Dawkin uses you all. The irony being, that you actually also enable him/her to feel intellectually superior to all of you, just by your kindergarten reaction to his/her posts, which are displayed openly for all to witness.

But there we are, many parochial Americans don't know how to keep their pie holes shut at all, let alone at the right time.

Your personal, overwhelming vanity prevents you from ignoring him/her when you should, therefore Dawkins makes you look like the bunch of ****Wits you really are.

Oh by the way, I am not bitter. Just extremely angry that the rest of the world have only American Ineptitude, no doubt akin to the ineptitude witnessed by myself within this forum as an answer to the huge financial crisis the US has placed itself into, along with the repercussions the rest of the western world will have to suffer.

I bid you adieu assholes.

Now, you have descended into the abyss of personal attack and childish name calling, thus proving you have no real argument.

I thought better of you at first.

Check and mate, and if you really mean your goodby, so be it.

[Andy]

I think I figured out what is going on here. I've seen this pattern a few times. Liberals in general, and I do mean in general, tend to follow the party line no matter what. I'll never forget the Republicans in congress during the mid 90s trying to pass Welfare Reform, and over and over Bill Clinton voted it. Finely about the what... 3rd or 4th time, he finely signed it when he found it to be politically advantageous to do so.

But amusingly, the liberals who supported him, when he was vetoing it, said it was the right thing to do, it was a horrible bill, it would kill children and leave people dying on the street corners and so on. Then when he signed it... poof it was a brilliant idea, it was a great step in the right direction, it was a masterful bit of legislation by Clinton. Even though people who compared the bills said there was nearly no changes between each bill.

Liberals will follow the party line no matter what. Like fill up your tires is our energy policy. "What a GREAT policy! That is BRILLIANT!". I think many liberals when they come on here, assume that all of us are exactly like them. And I'll even grant that I have seen some republicans that follow the party line no matter what too.

But most of us are not like that, which throws them off. I don't care what lame excuse Bush or anyone, democrat or republican, comes up with as to why this bailout is supposedly so needed. I'm against any welfare, no matter who it goes to. I'm against any socialism, no matter what reason is behind it. (and will be until someone can show a system that works). I'm against taking money from the people who rightfully earned it, and giving it to anyone who didn't, regardless of reason.

[NO Obamanation]

Total Ineptitude once again **** Wit. I am neither part of the left, nor right.

You make wild assumptions because you are indeed a ****Wit.

Nothing within my posts or my reaction to situations suggest to anyone other than a complete **** Wit that I am a liberal.

What I am attacking is the wholesale stupidity and ****wittedness of so many within this forum.

Is it any wonder I appear arrogant to you? The amusing aspect here is that your ****wittedness enables me to be positively brimming with arrogance.

You have absolutely no real economic discernment, if you had, you would fully understand that borrowers are not responsible for your precarious position and that a bailout will not fix the problems of a broken economic structure.

Neither do you have the capacity, to actually understand when someone is making a hell of a good job of subtly making you all look like a bunch of brainless assholes.

Dawkin uses you all. The irony being, that you actually also enable him/her to feel intellectually superior to all of you, just by your kindergarten reaction to his/her posts, which are displayed openly for all to witness.

But there we are, many parochial Americans don't know how to keep their pie holes shut at all, let alone at the right time.

Your personal, overwhelming vanity prevents you from ignoring him/her when you should, therefore Dawkins makes you look like the bunch of ****Wits you really are.

Oh by the way, I am not bitter. Just extremely angry that the rest of the world have only American Ineptitude, no doubt akin to the ineptitude witnessed by myself within this forum as an answer to the huge financial crisis the US has placed itself into, along with the repercussions the rest of the western world will have to suffer.

I bid you adieu assholes.

dorkinflaw never used me, I have had it on ignore for weeks, and I really can not imagine that there was a possiblity that it used anyone else either.

I am sorry that you are angry, I am angry too. The way America should work is the idiots in Congress work FOR us not AGAINST us, and that is all they seem to do. They dont listen, most Americans do not want this but they are doing it anyways and they are hiding thousands if not millions in little secret special perks for groups like acorn, and all we can do is get angry.

As angry as you are try to imagine living in a land where your government rules over you, decides for you yet you have this constitution saying it should not be that way. And you look at your little children and know they and their kids and their kid's kids are about to be screwed for what we the people were to weak to stop.

I hope you feel better soon. Sorry you are not happy :(