"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 23:22:43 GMT, notbob wrote:
>
>> On 2009-04-12, Pennyaline > wrote:
>>
>>> they are never full. It will take law to stop them. But we are tired and
>>> overwhelmed, not ready for the level of outrage it will take.
>>
>> Agreed. I guess we need to completely lose our "household" and hafta
>> stand
>> in soup lines and reside under overpasses and in hobo camps before we
>> really
>> get ****ed enough to act. It should be no surprise the new prez is doing
>> NOTHING, as his entire election campaign was based on exactly that.
>> NOTHING!
>>
>> nb
>
> it seems your definition of 'nothing' is different from most people's.
>

Really.

On 2009-04-13, blake murphy > wrote:

> it seems your definition of 'nothing' is different from most people's.

The same country that kept Bush in office for eight years? I hope to gawd
my definition of just about EVERYTHING is different from "most people's". As
for Obama, he's doing what? Giving rich criminals taxpayer money even
faster than Bush ever did. Yeah, that's a remedy. :|

nb

In article >, notbob > wrote:
>On 2009-04-13, blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> it seems your definition of 'nothing' is different from most people's.
>
>The same country that kept Bush in office for eight years? I hope to gawd
>my definition of just about EVERYTHING is different from "most people's". As
>for Obama, he's doing what? Giving rich criminals taxpayer money even
>faster than Bush ever did. Yeah, that's a remedy. :|

Don't worry. Once inflation takes off those billions will be worth
peanuts. (There's always a solution. 8-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:21:55 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:48:25 -0500, modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>
>> The capitalist line is that banks and other financial institutions
>> create jobs by aggregating savings and lending money to start-ups,
>> entrepreneurs, and established businesses seeking to grow. Looks to
>> me like they are only making dollars. They care not for jobs, goods
>> or services, except that they can buy them with their dollars.
>
>there's something to be said for that. but after the first loan is made to
>a business or homeowner, the debt/loan is sliced and diced, sold and
>re-sold, with each transaction making a heavy fee for the repackager. i
>don't see the utility in that.
>
From the POV of the the lending institution, the utility is getting
the loan off their books in exchange for cash to lend to another
sucker -- er, customer. The same pot of cash can be re-lent many
times if they can sell the debt to Goldman Sachs with a debt guarantee
(CDS) underwritten by AIG and a AAA rating from Moody's. All you
gotta do is use your math numbers to show that the senior tranches of
the CDOs you're cooking up have a statistical probability of paying
out that's high enough to score an investment grade rating.

The argument is that banks will be able to lend more and at better
rates if they can work that way. The problem is that they built a
giant house of cards working that way. And none of it added to the
general well being of the people, except for letting unemployed meth
users buy houses they couldn't afford.

The first huge bailout of AIG got distributed to its CDS
counterparties to a large extent. Goldman landed $12 billion after it
passed through the rotting guts of AIG. What's outrageous to me is
that they were repayed 100 cents on the dollar for the value of
derivatives essentially identitical to ones that other institutions
were trading for ca. 22 cents on the dollar at the same time.

And don't get me started on Phill Gramm's employer, UBS.
--

modom

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-04-13, blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> it seems your definition of 'nothing' is different from most people's.
>
> The same country that kept Bush in office for eight years? I hope to gawd
> my definition of just about EVERYTHING is different from "most people's".
> As
> for Obama, he's doing what? Giving rich criminals taxpayer money even
> faster than Bush ever did. Yeah, that's a remedy. :|
>

You're stupid. See, this is why I don't like these political discussions.
Blake will take the time to tell you how and why you are stupid, but I just
cannot be bothered, so that is all I have to say. I like your posts about
food.

notbob wrote:

> In such a large newsgroup, one that typically touches on so many
> subjects other than cooking, I'm dumbfounded by the astonishing lack
> of concern over the economic situation in this country (USA) and the
> reasons for it.

<snipped for space>

Um, have you and I been reading a different rec.food.cooking? Seen
plenty of 'outrage' about the economic situation in the USA posted here
in recent months...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On 2009-04-13, cybercat > wrote:

> You're stupid.

How can anyone but whither under the superbly elucidated series of
scathing arguments of your detailed and well thought out rebuttal.

nb

In article >,
says...
>
> "Goomba" > wrote in message
> ...
> > notbob wrote:
> >> In such a large newsgroup, one that typically touches on so many subjects
> >> other than cooking, I'm dumbfounded by the astonishing lack of concern
> >> over
> >> the economic situation in this country (USA) and the reasons for it.
> >> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html
> >>
> >> It's almost like we're ashamed to be reminded of our blatant apathy. Or
> >> is
> >> it so many of us were at the head of the line in the ever increasing
> >> fraud.
> >>
> >> Have you written your US reps? I'm writing, now.
> >
> >
> > I think without term limits, change will be hard to come by.
>
> I used to be against term limits figuring you just vote the *******s out.
> Boy, was I wrong. Once entrenched the electorate just keeps pulling the
> same lever. The law should be two terms maximum and out.

Here in RI the general officers are term limited but the legislature
isn't. Consider that the legislature holds ALL the power since they
control the purse strings and you have a perfect storm of corruption.

In article >,
says...
>
> On 2009-04-13, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> > I used to be against term limits figuring you just vote the *******s out.
> > Boy, was I wrong. Once entrenched the electorate just keeps pulling the
> > same lever. The law should be two terms maximum and out.
>
> CA has term limits. The problem with term limits is, the dirtbags have to
> work even faster to reap their ill-gotten gains.
>
> nb

I have two or three things I'd like to see happen in the political
realm.

1) Term limits on all elected offcials, be they governors or
representatives. Right now general officers are limited to two terms or
a total of eight years. Say that representatives can serve for up to ten
years, senators up to twelve and I'll be happy.

2) Open records! When I worked at the Sec. States office we had this
wonderful app where you could follow the money. It even showed the bill
number, etc. Then our developer realized we could scrap the house and
senate journals (In PDF format of course) and capture individual vote
information on each bill. The legislature got wind of that and put
enormous pressurer on the Sec. State not to cross-link that information.
Grrrrr, was not happy about that at all. Even emailed the speaker of
the house and told him "How dare you!"

3) A change to the 14th Amendment, and to the state equal protection
amendments. That change would excluse corporations from having any of
the rights enumerated by the Constitution.

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-04-13, cybercat > wrote:
>
> > You're stupid.
>
> How can anyone but whither under the superbly elucidated series of
> scathing arguments of your detailed and well thought out rebuttal.

It's not "whither" but "wither". And it's not "rebuttal" but "whining".

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"[Don't] assume that someone is "broken" just because they behave in ways
you don't like or don't understand." --Miche

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> In such a large newsgroup, one that typically touches on so many subjects
> other than cooking, I'm dumbfounded by the astonishing lack of concern over
> the economic situation in this country (USA) and the reasons for it.
>
> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html
>
> It's almost like we're ashamed to be reminded of our blatant apathy. Or is
> it so many of us were at the head of the line in the ever increasing fraud.
>
> Have you written your US reps? I'm writing, now.
>
> http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
> http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

I have written to all my reps several times to make them aware of
different concerns. Ditto for the president. I also believe that we
cannot have a representative government if our elected officials don't
hear from us because none of them can read minds.

Fortunately, I think we are not quite at the bottom, but very close to
it. The stock market is starting to come back. I have two portfolios of
investments: one for retirement and one relatively short-term. Both are
coming back to profitability.

Banks seem to be getting healthier now too. What will continue to drag
the economy in my humble opinion is GM, but that too will be fixed.
Unfortunately, the fix for GM will result in a lot of pain for GM's
employees, contractors, and especially dealers.

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:17:37 -0500, modom (palindrome guy) wrote:

<snip of some worthwhile material>

> And don't get me started on Phill Gramm's employer, UBS.

a truly loathsome man.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:45:48 GMT, notbob wrote:

> On 2009-04-13, blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> it seems your definition of 'nothing' is different from most people's.
>
> The same country that kept Bush in office for eight years? I hope to gawd
> my definition of just about EVERYTHING is different from "most people's". As
> for Obama, he's doing what? Giving rich criminals taxpayer money even
> faster than Bush ever did. Yeah, that's a remedy. :|
>
> nb

i think it's a little early to be equating obama to bush.

your pal,
blake

On 2009-04-14, blake murphy > wrote:

> i think it's a little early to be equating obama to bush.

Screw equate! Bush squandered billions in his eight year term. At
Obama's present rate, we'll be 3rd behind Haiti by July.

nb

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:34:03 GMT, notbob wrote:

> On 2009-04-13, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> I used to be against term limits figuring you just vote the *******s out.
>> Boy, was I wrong. Once entrenched the electorate just keeps pulling the
>> same lever. The law should be two terms maximum and out.
>
> CA has term limits. The problem with term limits is, the dirtbags have to
> work even faster to reap their ill-gotten gains.
>
> nb

i don't see the value in term limits. learning to do anything well takes
some time.

it's true that some perfect idiots seem to hold onto office for a long
time, but their state or district is just as likely to elect a fresh, new
idiot.

term limits just seem like another quick, painless (but useless) method to
ensure people elect good representatives without the tiresome business of
actually looking into the people they are voting for.

i have noticed that most u.s. representatives elected on a promise to limit
their won term (almost all of them republicans) found a reason to weasel
out of it.

your pal,
blake

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:35:11 -0400, T wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> On 2009-04-13, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> I used to be against term limits figuring you just vote the *******s out.
>>> Boy, was I wrong. Once entrenched the electorate just keeps pulling the
>>> same lever. The law should be two terms maximum and out.
>>
>> CA has term limits. The problem with term limits is, the dirtbags have to
>> work even faster to reap their ill-gotten gains.
>>
>> nb
>
> I have two or three things I'd like to see happen in the political
> realm.
>
> 1) Term limits on all elected offcials, be they governors or
> representatives. Right now general officers are limited to two terms or
> a total of eight years. Say that representatives can serve for up to ten
> years, senators up to twelve and I'll be happy.
>

maybe so, but that does infringe on the right of people to freely choose
who shall represent them.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:34:10 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> notbob wrote:
>
>> In such a large newsgroup, one that typically touches on so many
>> subjects other than cooking, I'm dumbfounded by the astonishing lack
>> of concern over the economic situation in this country (USA) and the
>> reasons for it.
>
> <snipped for space>
>
> Um, have you and I been reading a different rec.food.cooking? Seen
> plenty of 'outrage' about the economic situation in the USA posted here
> in recent months...

that was just moderate ****ed-offness. we want outrage, god damn it!

your pal,
rush

blake murphy wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:17:37 -0500, modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>
> <snip of some worthwhile material>
>
> > And don't get me started on Phill Gramm's employer, UBS.
>
> a truly loathsome man.


Along the same lines as Barney Frank, I'd say...


--
Best
Greg

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money."~~~~Margaret Thatcher

On 2009-04-14, blake murphy > wrote:

> i have noticed that most u.s. representatives elected on a promise to limit
> their won term (almost all of them republicans) found a reason to weasel
> out of it.
>
> your pal,
> blake
>
> your pal,
> blake

Calm down. Won sig is enough.

nb

blake murphy wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:34:10 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>> notbob wrote:
>>
>>> In such a large newsgroup, one that typically touches on so many
>>> subjects other than cooking, I'm dumbfounded by the astonishing lack
>>> of concern over the economic situation in this country (USA) and the
>>> reasons for it.
>>
>> <snipped for space>
>>
>> Um, have you and I been reading a different rec.food.cooking? Seen
>> plenty of 'outrage' about the economic situation in the USA posted
>> here in recent months...
>
> that was just moderate ****ed-offness. we want outrage, god damn it!
>
> your pal,
> rush

<Cathy slaps forehead>

Shouda known that...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Just because we don't express concern on this group doens't mean we aren't
concerned. It's just a waste of time to discuss it. Anything I say or do
won't change anything. This goes for Canada too.


--
mompeagram
FERGUS/HARLINGEN
Owner
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rec-Food-Baking-cooking/
http://mompeagram.homestead.com

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> In such a large newsgroup, one that typically touches on so many subjects
> other than cooking, I'm dumbfounded by the astonishing lack of concern
> over
> the economic situation in this country (USA) and the reasons for it.
>
> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html
>
> It's almost like we're ashamed to be reminded of our blatant apathy. Or
> is
> it so many of us were at the head of the line in the ever increasing
> fraud.
>
> Have you written your US reps? I'm writing, now.
>
> http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
> http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm
>
> nb

"cyberpurrs" > wrote in message
...
>
> "notbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2009-04-12, cybercat > wrote:
>>
>>> So now we have no social conscience if we DON'T post offtopic in a food
>>> group about politics and word affairs?
>>
>> So now the situation will disappear and heal itself if we ignore it and
>> criticize the critics?
>>
> nb. RFC is not all some of us do, right?
Right.

--
mompeagram
FERGUS/HARLINGEN
Owner
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rec-Food-Baking-cooking/
http://mompeagram.homestead.com

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message
m...
>
>
> notbob wrote:
>
>> In such a large newsgroup, one that typically touches on so many subjects
>> other than cooking, I'm dumbfounded by the astonishing lack of concern
> over
>> the economic situation in this country (USA) and the reasons for it.
>>
>> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html
>>
>> It's almost like we're ashamed to be reminded of our blatant apathy. Or
> is
>> it so many of us were at the head of the line in the ever increasing
> fraud.
>>
>> Have you written your US reps? I'm writing, now.
>>
>> http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
>> http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm
>>
>
>
> I salute you for your concern, nb, but both parties are so blatantly and
> deeply ensconced in this mess that I don't think writing will do much to
> help alleviate the sitch...and I increasingly think that voting won't do
> much good, either.
>
> :-(
>
>
> --
> Best
> Greg
>
> "The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
> people's money."~~~~Margaret Thatcher
>
>
And I don't think sending a contribution is going to do anything but lose us
more money


--
mompeagram
FERGUS/HARLINGEN
Owner
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rec-Food-Baking-cooking/
http://mompeagram.homestead.com

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Goomba" > wrote in message
> ...
>> notbob wrote:
>>> In such a large newsgroup, one that typically touches on so many
>>> subjects
>>> other than cooking, I'm dumbfounded by the astonishing lack of concern
>>> over
>>> the economic situation in this country (USA) and the reasons for it.
>>> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html
>>>
>>> It's almost like we're ashamed to be reminded of our blatant apathy. Or
>>> is
>>> it so many of us were at the head of the line in the ever increasing
>>> fraud.
>>>
>>> Have you written your US reps? I'm writing, now.
>>
>>
>> I think without term limits, change will be hard to come by.
>
> I used to be against term limits figuring you just vote the *******s out.
> Boy, was I wrong. Once entrenched the electorate just keeps pulling the
> same lever. The law should be two terms maximum and out.
>
Well, in that case, you should check out Hazel McCallion. Mayor of
Mississauga. She's been Mayor for over 30 years, always gets voted back in.
She's 88 and they are the only city in Ontario that doesn't have a deficit.

--
mompeagram
FERGUS/HARLINGEN
Owner
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rec-Food-Baking-cooking/
http://mompeagram.homestead.com

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Goomba" > wrote in message
> ...
>> notbob wrote:
>>> In such a large newsgroup, one that typically touches on so many
>>> subjects
>>> other than cooking, I'm dumbfounded by the astonishing lack of concern
>>> over
>>> the economic situation in this country (USA) and the reasons for it.
>>> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html
>>>
>>> It's almost like we're ashamed to be reminded of our blatant apathy. Or
>>> is
>>> it so many of us were at the head of the line in the ever increasing
>>> fraud.
>>>
>>> Have you written your US reps? I'm writing, now.
>>
>>
>> I think without term limits, change will be hard to come by.
>
> I used to be against term limits figuring you just vote the *******s out.
> Boy, was I wrong. Once entrenched the electorate just keeps pulling the
> same lever. The law should be two terms maximum and out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_McCallion


--
mompeagram
FERGUS/HARLINGEN
Owner
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rec-Food-Baking-cooking/
http://mompeagram.homestead.com

mom peagram wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote

>> I used to be against term limits figuring you just vote the *******s
>> out. Boy, was I wrong. Once entrenched the electorate just keeps
>> pulling the same lever. The law should be two terms maximum and out.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_McCallion

I can see both sides, but I in my heart I can't agree with a law
that tells me I can't vote for the best person for the job. I'll
grant you, that is a rare situation indeed, but a good for instance
besides yours is that NYC doesn't need a new mayor right now.
Last I heard, they have suspended the 2 term limit law for him.
If I lived there, I'd be happy about that.

nancy