Yeah, this'll end well...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071003206.html

Maybe they can get FEMA and the SEC to manage it...

Sheesh,
R
....why don't they just put a blue light up at Treasury, see if Britney or
Annette will sell Timmy her old ears, and quit ****ing around with all this coy
****...

wrote in message
...
Maybe they can get FEMA and the SEC to manage it...

Sheesh,
R


well, since we seem to at least being on our way toward a competent FEMA(all
bets off on an SEC that could miss Madoff for 10 years), why not??
Seriously, though, does your beef with this go beyond a distaste for
government loan programs? Hell, they are getting the TARP money back now,
why not plow it into other areas of the economy?
Tom

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:40:56 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Maybe they can get FEMA and the SEC to manage it...

Sheesh,
R


well, since we seem to at least being on our way toward a competent FEMA(all
bets off on an SEC that could miss Madoff for 10 years), why not??
Seriously, though, does your beef with this go beyond a distaste for
government loan programs? Hell, they are getting the TARP money back now,
why not plow it into other areas of the economy?
Tom

shirley - you jest. FEMA is not on it's way to competency and it will never be
"competent," no matter who is the Oval Office. It wasn't "competent" under
Bush, Clinton, etc., and it's isn't and won't be under Him, either. It cannot be
"competent" because it's run by bureaucrats. To paraphrase, setting up a
bureaucracy whose sole purpose is to put itself out of business is lunacy. You
are still helping me and every other US taxpayer pay for Katrina victims'
housing. It's ****in' 2009, for God's sake. I'm down here, I know what
happened and I know how bad it was, but geezusmaryonapony, 4 years?!?

As to TARP, let's see if I understand your rational: we "lent" money to banks
who either, 1., didn't want the money, or, 2., got their tits in a wringer
because of stupid business practices, and now, the ones who didn't want it in
the first place are being _allowed_ to return it, so the taxpayer lucked out on
that one. But now, "we" should take the money "we" miraculously got back and
give it to folks who don't qualify for loans, but want to start small
businesses, or worse, keep failing small businesses alive. Uh, OK. Lessee
businesses that need loans...hmmm...AHA!...they need to find bartenders and
cocktail waitresses who make 30K a year, have no experience whatsoever in
anything remotely related to construction but saw a 3-year-old episode of "****
Up this House Flip," and lend them about a mil each. They can go buy 2-3
trashed-out MacMansions at the foreclosure sale, fix 'em up and flip 'em to
folks who, if they don't eat for 2 weeks out of each month and send Citibank the
minimum on the Visa bill (run up buying plasma TVs, Tommy Pullmyfinger shirts,
and Frappamochachinos...), they'll be able to afford at least a few months of
payments. The flippers can and will use the profits to go buy 87" wheels and
tires and 17 TVs for the brand spankin' new Tahoe, courtesy of GMAC and
TimmyBama. And when the flipped house and the Tahoe get repo'ed in 6 months,
the process can start all over. That'll help solve the foreclosure problem AND
fix the auto industry....

And you want to frost that ****cake with the bureaucracy that will be needed to
administer THAT? Hey, banks ARE lending to "small businesses," they just aren't
throwing money at anyone who can fog up a mirror anymore. Finally. And aren't
lots of "experts" currently all wrapped around the axle about how the credit
card companies/consumer debt is the "next shoe?" So it seems like a good idea
to you to give these same ****ups - i.e., "consumers" - seed money to start, or
prop up, a "business?" Hey, if the business was creditworthy, some bank
somewhere would be falling over itself to lend that business money, because
that's a large part of how sensible banks make sensible profit - they lend money
to credit-worthy businesses and individuals.

TC,
R

wrote in message
...
shirley - you jest.

well, yes, in part(and, don't call me Shirley!).
Still, I think you read a worst-case scenario into what is at best,
currently, a vague proposal. Also, I think you underestimate the need for
the TARP in the first place, or at least trivialize it. Hell, I thought that
the situation was allowed to go WAY past any sensibility, in terms of
lending, and personal responsibilities, but there was(IMO) a somewhat likely
scenario of sequential failures of large financial institutions that would
have ****ed things up for all of us. Hence, the need for a stabilizing
influx, which, as noted, seems to be coming back to us in pretty short
order. And, yes, I agree with a good part of your rant on personal
responsibility....and am in the camp with a very wary eye on credit card and
commercial real estate defaults. I do, however, try and take the position of
waiting to see a more precise proposal before wailing about the imminent
failure of said proposal........
Tom