MF Socialist telling people what they should earn and what to do with their profits….

I have started four business in my life time and two failed costing me lots of money, property and shit load of hurt and pain that took years to recover.
I put my home, future for my family, life style, hard work, dedication, long hour and little reward to be free, have freedom to do what I want in life and to have my achievement to support me and my love ones. I did not sit on my ass asking for f*&%*#^ handout, entitlements, expecting someone else to provide for me, wanting someone else hard earned money to justify my incompetence. I was not a coward to put my personal position on the line because I had confidence and believe in myself because I had self-worth. How did that self-worth come about because I worked for it and earned it ……… EARNED IT………..
All you asshole that think you’re entitled to something for doing nothing kiss my ass….and all you Liberal that think everyone has the right to things other work hard to achieve and have ..you’re an asshole also. Give your share of your half ass effort and worthless income that you expected to get because you did what ……. Too those you think are entitled to what?
Those that think they are entitled without earning it are the problem not me, they created their own problems daily and are entitled to have what I have …bullshit.
Let me understand this…if what I have is so good then it must not be a problem to have. You’re just worthless individual that only wants to take not earn.

Blame the rich and the wealth or those that rose above the standard to be somebody more….. WTF …they are the problem ……… put blame where blame should be

I’m a risk taker, entrepreneur, and investment in myself for that I expect to spend, save and take the profits from my company as I deem as my right at I have EARNED.
Do I take advantage of people …if you call asking them to do a good days work for the income that the only thing they have invested in is time….. yes
If my hard work created a position for them to have employment …yes
My risk provided jobs that can be filled with people with families…yes

Does this Public Servant and any of you Liberals understand ….
You’ll never be hired by the unemployed
You’ll never get a promotion from the homeless
You’ll never get paid from the poor
You’ll never have value if you don’t earn it….

Sorry little piss ….today I think I’m going out a kick a worker now because that what the Public Servant has done……………

Wow, Belly! I've never saw you so worked up!

Can't say that I blame your sentiments, though.

As much as he was more "aggressive" than I would have put it, Belly hit the nail on the head with that post.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Wow, Belly! I've never saw you so worked up!

Can't say that I blame your sentiments, though.

Sorry ...It’s a behavior I don't like to display
Could have been that $00000.00 taxes I paid in April
Could be that Royal Irish Blood line
Could be because no reply to Barnsville or Byesville
or
It could be that listening to a socialist community organizer with his head up his ass piss me off.
Sorry I should wait 8 days before making any attempt to comment or do any thing before I spill out my frustration….

jmog wrote: As much as he was more "aggressive" than I would have put it, Belly hit the nail on the head with that post.

I agree, while the method of delivery was unique, the message itself is spot on to anyone worth a shit.

Thank you ! I'll be here Monday thur Friday and sometime on Saurday ...bring a friend

I Wear Pants wrote: So the answer is do nothing?

The answer is to not permit the creators and enablers of the "toxic debt" -- the government -- from being involved. We must correct the root cause of the problem, but unfortunately that is not what the liberals are doing.

Change we can believe in ............................................. LOL

QuakerOats wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: So the answer is do nothing?

The answer is to not permit the creators and enablers of the "toxic debt" -- the government -- from being involved. We must correct the root cause of the problem, but unfortunately that is not what the liberals are doing.

Change we can believe in ............................................. LOL

The government weren't the creators of the toxic debt we were talking about.

They didn't make the bad mortgages and then package them up as a good investment all the while betting against them.

I Wear Pants wrote:

QuakerOats wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: So the answer is do nothing?

The answer is to not permit the creators and enablers of the "toxic debt" -- the government -- from being involved. We must correct the root cause of the problem, but unfortunately that is not what the liberals are doing.

Change we can believe in ............................................. LOL

The government weren't the creators of the toxic debt we were talking about.

They didn't make the bad mortgages and then package them up as a good investment all the while betting against them.

The government has run up trillions of dollars of debt. Wouldn't they be in a better position to talk financial responsibility to people who have run up billions of dollars of debt if they took care of themselves first?

They aren't talking fiscal responsibility. Is it that hard to understand that the type of selling that went on in the financial market is good for no one and unethical?

There needs to be some rules as to what you can do in some of the more complex investment areas.

I Wear Pants wrote: They aren't talking fiscal responsibility. Is it that hard to understand that the type of selling that went on in the financial market is good for no one and unethical?

There needs to be some rules as to what you can do in some of the more complex investment areas.

I agree that it is good for no one (except the few who make a profit on it ). I just find it ironic that the politicians who are coming out against it have ripped off many more dollars through unethical means.

I Wear Pants wrote: They aren't talking fiscal responsibility. Is it that hard to understand that the type of selling that went on in the financial market is good for no one and unethical?

There needs to be some rules as to what you can do in some of the more complex investment areas.

Is that not the responsibility of the ethical cheating lawyers and corrupted legal consultants?
Maybe we should hold the rich and wealth and corporation accountable but those that interpret the laws and those that make the laws.

I get what you're saying but I don't think it's very good logic.

If you think that the financial industry should not be allowed to do certain things that have helped led to our current situation then it would make sense to make rules saying "you can't do x,x, and x". The government happens to be the entity that makes rules like that so they have to do so.

The fact that the government hasn't performed well in other areas is irrelevant to the discussion.

What is relevant is "what should the rules be?"

Belly35 wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: They aren't talking fiscal responsibility. Is it that hard to understand that the type of selling that went on in the financial market is good for no one and unethical?

There needs to be some rules as to what you can do in some of the more complex investment areas.

Is that not the responsibility of the ethical cheating lawyers and corrupted legal consultants?
Maybe we should hold the rich and wealth and corporation accountable but those that interpret the laws and those that make the laws.

Are you telling me that the financial industry has done no wrong these past ten years?

I Wear Pants wrote:

Belly35 wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: They aren't talking fiscal responsibility. Is it that hard to understand that the type of selling that went on in the financial market is good for no one and unethical?

There needs to be some rules as to what you can do in some of the more complex investment areas.

Is that not the responsibility of the ethical cheating lawyers and corrupted legal consultants?
Maybe we should hold the rich and wealth and corporation accountable but those that interpret the laws and those that make the laws.

Are you telling me that the financial industry has done no wrong these past ten years?

Blaming Corp America is one thing but where was the Federal Government when this was going on (playing porn) or supporting the idea, where was the opportunity created that allowed financial corruption to happen (Fanny Freddy), from what area of the picture did the idea start (Entitlement)…..

You can create rules to be broken and twisted and you can create laws to protect (immigration laws … illegals) but if the Government does not enforce what they create or the enforcement of what was created is not able to be enforces then people will abuse the system. Creating a bad idea for political reason and then justifying that piss poor thought process by punching the Financial Market for Government failure is crazy. They are Public Servant and if they (Public Servant) fail the American People that where heads should roll…. First.

Clean out the shit house before adding more crap …...

The opportunity arose out of the lack of regulation in the more complex investment markets.

But yeah, it goes without saying that the dudes who were downloading porn while at work when they were supposed to be looking for dudes like Bernie Madoff should be fired and charged with a crime if possible.

"They didn't make the bad mortgages and then package them up as a good investment all the while betting against them. "

Have you heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac?

No one likes a hypocrite, and right now a majority of our leaders in Congress, White House and Supreme Court are just that, hypocrites. Belittling people, that yes do need it, but then shady underhanded dealings between themselves to pass bills by bribing other Congressmen. Thats what I read into most on this threads distate of our government at work.

In my little corner of the world, our village 14 years ago was placed on financial emergency status by the state. A new mayor later, cutbacks, frugality and a 1% income tax we are off this watch and financially stable while creating a stronger infrastructure.

Who checks our Fed? We do and the media, whos dropped the ball lately, we have and the media. Time to vote our conscious, not party lines.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "They didn't make the bad mortgages and then package them up as a good investment all the while betting against them. "

Have you heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac?

They should have more regulations as well.

I Wear Pants wrote:

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "They didn't make the bad mortgages and then package them up as a good investment all the while betting against them. "

Have you heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac?

They should have more regulations as well.

They're already government-run entities. Isn't it reasonable to assume that if government can't police the companies that it runs itself, that some might just be a little skeptical when they say "let us fix Wall Street for you?"

I Wear Pants wrote: The government weren't the creators of the toxic debt we were talking about.

They didn't make the bad mortgages and then package them up as a good investment all the while betting against them.

The hell they weren't; they forced banks into making bad loans. Then they supported that bad policy by propping it up with with Fannie and Freddie -- another toxic move. What part about that don't you understand?

QuakerOats wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: The government weren't the creators of the toxic debt we were talking about.

They didn't make the bad mortgages and then package them up as a good investment all the while betting against them.

The hell they weren't; they forced banks into making bad loans. Then they supported that bad policy by propping it up with with Fannie and Freddie -- another toxic move. What part about that don't you understand?

Fannie and Freddies shareholders were as much responsible for the decline in lending standards as the government was. If you look at the statistics, GSE's were actually losing market share in loan issuance around the turn of the century to the major investment banks, and there shareholders demanded they followed suit to get more competitive as those were higher yield areas to be in at the time. They were a private company after all (which was retarded concept considering the government backing).

Wallstreet was every bit as responsible if not more for the housing bubble than Congress because the securitization model that was bringing in money hand over fist needed more and more mortgages issued so they had more collateral to create new securities against. The only way to get more mortgages issued was to lower lending standards, which creates a race to the bottom as other companies were forced to adopt like practices or lose market share.

If Fannie and Freddie were the true culprit of the bubble, there would have only ever been a bubble in residential home values instead of both commercial and residential (as was the case) because Fannie and Freddie had no involvement there but a bubble still inflated.

It was the securitization practices that ultimately blew up the mortgage market. Fannie and Freddie were by no means innocent, but there was a 20-30 year run after the CRA where the market was relatively calm. It was only the past 15 years or so when MBS's were allowed to get out of control did the bubble explode.

IggyPride00 wrote:

QuakerOats wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: The government weren't the creators of the toxic debt we were talking about.

They didn't make the bad mortgages and then package them up as a good investment all the while betting against them.

The hell they weren't; they forced banks into making bad loans. Then they supported that bad policy by propping it up with with Fannie and Freddie -- another toxic move. What part about that don't you understand?

Fannie and Freddies shareholders were as much responsible for the decline in lending standards as the government was. If you look at the statistics, GSE's were actually losing market share in loan issuance around the turn of the century to the major investment banks, and there shareholders demanded they followed suit to get more competitive as those were higher yield areas to be in at the time. They were a private company after all (which was retarded concept considering the government backing).

Wallstreet was every bit as responsible if not more for the housing bubble than Congress because the securitization model that was bringing in money hand over fist needed more and more mortgages issued so they had more collateral to create new securities against. The only way to get more mortgages issued was to lower lending standards, which creates a race to the bottom as other companies were forced to adopt like practices or lose market share.

If Fannie and Freddie were the true culprit of the bubble, there would have only ever been a bubble in residential home values instead of both commercial and residential (as was the case) because Fannie and Freddie had no involvement there but a bubble still inflated.

It was the securitization practices that ultimately blew up the mortgage market. Fannie and Freddie were by no means innocent, but there was a 20-30 year run after the CRA where the market was relatively calm. It was only the past 15 years or so when MBS's were allowed to get out of control did the bubble explode.

I don't see anyone in the Public Servant Administration going after those in Fannie or Freddie ....Why?

Belly35 wrote: I don't see anyone in the Public Servant Administration going after those in Fannie or Freddie ....Why?

$$$$$$

If you're going to go after one, you must go after the other.

Why would you mop only half the floor?

Why would a janitor at a school only clean up 1/2 the vomit after some kid got sick?

See what I mean?