Reply With Quote
I think chump is a "sweaty-palmed, yes sir, no sir" kind of violator contact.
Chump would fail as a cop like he's doing with this argument. Learn to read.
I think chump is a "sweaty-palmed, yes sir, no sir" kind of violator contact.
I did, that's how I concluded it was a stupid arrest.
I think Yoni is an "I don't know about the law" kind of former law enforcement officer.
Seriously, they avoided the complete collapse of the credit markets and the global economy - are there things that should have been done differently, Yes, but given the urgency of the situation...
have you been on vacation or what dan?
Yep.well, vacation-business trip if you willl...but I checked in on the Iphone periodically....hard to type on those qwerty keyboards though.....
I think this pres is the biggest asshole pres we ever had.
Why?
Latino Cops Organization: Cambridge Police Acted "Stupidly"
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news...3f8b3b0bf39a9c...Any police officer after reviewing his actions in retrospect can conclude that this situation if handled differently could have better served police and community relations.
We also agree that the officers acted “stupidly” in arresting a man in his own home for disorderly conduct. Police officers are held to a higher standard than the public. They are trained to de-escalate situations and to be more tolerant. The officer in question, an instructor of sensitivity,should have exercised more discretion between free speech and the necessary element of public alarm for disorderly conduct.
It is a common practice, often complained of, that requesting an officer’s name and badge number often results in being arrested. Resisting arrest, resisting arrest without violence, disorderly conduct, obstructing governmental administration and similarly worded statutes are tools for law enforcement officers to advance or support legitimate police actions and strategies.
These statutes were never meant to advance the intimidation of the public...
No they didn't. It wouldn't have collapsed, and I believe it would have recovered better, and stronger, if the failed businesses were allowed to go into bankruptcy.
The bailout only gave them excuses to play with us, and demand more... or else...
You don't know what you're talking about as far as letting every single one collapse at once. It could have been handled a lot better that the massive bailout though.
They were not all in crisis. Look at the facts. The others would have grown, the ones who actually acted responsibly!
Once panic settles in, and trust in the system is lost, you're done. You only need a handful of the really big ones, like Bank of America, to fail to create a major bank run that will take everyone else with them. We live in a fiat economy. I don't care how great you think any other bank is, if people lose confidence that they can get their money whenever they need it, then the entire system collapses rather quickly.
That's why if you're going to let en ies fail, then it has to be done one at a time in a controlled environment.
So are you saying it's better to reward bad behavior and expect them to change their ways, rather than rewarding the behavior of those who did things right?
I think there is more panic in spending trillions that will not help in the long run vs. a few hundred billion to garentee loans with the smaller banks who wouldn't be able to help without more finances.
Reward good behavior, not bad. A good leader would have clearly made this point known to the public, and consumer confidence would be restored.
I guess you like the bonuses and all that the CEO's of these companies got from securing government funding...
The problem with you is that you have a binary mind. Everything is either black or white. Right or wrong. Good or bad. And the other problem is that you live in theories and you simply don't listen to people that already experienced your theories and saw them crash and burn.
No, I wasn't happy with the bailout either, and expressed that plenty of times. But the solution was not to let everyone burn at the same time either. That has been already tried in various parts of the world and only causes bank runs and irreparable damage politically, socially and economically. There's more than black and white in these situations. There's various shades of gray.
My actual proposition was that the government would actually fund some of these failed en ies just for as long as needed until they could be bankrupt one by one in a controlled environment. IE: You don't have Bank of America and TD Bank bankrupting at the same time, which was a real possibility at the time.
There are other options at hand too: You could limit people's access to actual cash temporarily until liquidity is restored. Unfortunately, with the amount of bad assets I don't think this option was actually practical in this case.
You are wrong. Rather than writing thousands of words to convey all thoughts, I simply normally just put out the most pertinent to the subject.
But not everyone would have. That is a more of a binary thought than I appear to have.
Really? I think you misunderstand my point. How does a failed bank cause such runs? The investors lose rather than the tax payers. Investors know their is risk. Just because the investors have friend in DC shouldn't mean they get their asses saved.
No Sherlock. After all the times I have stated various thoughts, I cannot believe you think I'm that shallow.
There were plenty of banks not in trouble so your argument lacks the proper facts. I might agree if it were true that all were failing.
That would cripple the economy if you limited people's cash.
You really need to read these two:
LINK
LINK
Especially the banking panic and systemic banking crisis references.
A healthy bank doesn't mean it's immune to a run. Once multiple runs start, everything is wiped out. Good bank, bad bank, small bank, big bank.
The Great Depression is a great example of a systemic banking crisis.
So your contention is that it's better to add an additional 20% deficit to the GNP rather than risk an equal loss from the crisis?
I don't know about you, but I would bet on the possible loss rather than the sure loss!
I gather you didn't read anything of what I linked to?
And here you are again with the binary propositions. 'So your contention is that black is better than white?'
No, my contention is that the bailout was not the correct thing to do, but it was actually a better option than simply triggering a systemic bank failure (which you basically have no idea how it works).
What I actually think should have happened was something in between.
Yes, a THIRD option, can you believe that?
a third option would have been too late.
I do not believe enough of the banks would have failed to cause such a thing. The ones that made the bad loans deserved to fail. I am all for taking a temporary hit, like any other correction. I honestly believe that these bailouts will cause us far more harm than what would have happened by telling the banks "go yourself." Controlling interests in the banks would have done all in their power to stay viable as long as it was their investments at risk. Once the government rewarded them for their failures, they have no incentives to fix things the right way. If we wanted to help the failing banks, we should have made demands on them, and could have guaranteed customers money to avoid a run. That would have been far cheaper than raping my children of their future.
No it wouldn't. That's what the fear mongers were saying. I think they just said it because a third option would have the stock holders of banks lose their asses. Can't be having the friends of DC lose their shirts now, can we? Had to act fast before people figured out the scam they were pulling.
so, you're saying that bush had to act fast before people figured out the scam they were pulling?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
