Friday, March 20, 2009

The AIG Mess: Obama and the Press are Destroying AIG and the Economy With It

Obama, the press and the saber-rattling congress are destroying the economy.

The economy disdains uncertainty – and Obama is creating plenty of it.

Econ 101: Where Does Economic Growth Come From?

Growth in the economy, in no small part, depends on the availability of capital for investment. Companies raise capital through selling equity and debt.

The price of capital depends on uncertainty

Investment Capital isn’t free – inventors reap a reward for taking the risk of investing. For debt, the interest rate and other terms of the loan: less certainty, greater cost of funds. (Corollary: uncertainty not only hinders investment, it is a source of inflation.) Equity investment as well depends on the level of uncertainty. As the level of uncertainty rises, equity values (i.e., the stock market) fall. Falling markets make equity investment capital scarce, and quite expensive. When companies lack capital, they don’t invest in growth. If there is no growth, the economy falters. Yes Virginia, sometimes it really is this simple.

The Role Of Money Managers in the Economy

The bonuses are going to money managers. So, what role do they play in a recovering economy? These professional money managers determine in the largest part, the level of uncertainty in the market and the price for equity and debt. These are the very people that help determine if economy even has the ability to grow. Their role in the economic recovery is crucial and self-evident. Not only do these financial managers price debt and equity, they invest their own money wisely. If they have less of it, you will see further downward pressure on real estate in New York and other big cities.

No Legal Basis for Retroactive Retribution

There is no legal basis for retribution – that is why the meddling House approved a new bill today that, cloaked as a tax, would claw-back all but 10 percent of the bucks. The administration has no legal grounds to play hide-and-seek with an employee's bonus. The law (Section 111(b)(3)(D)(iii)) clearly states:
The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.
Obama signed this into law. (But perhaps he never read it.) No matter, he was informed--and his Press Secretary approved. Suddenly he says he is ‘stunned’ by millions in AIG bonuses?

Saber-Rattling to Appease so-called Main-stream Media

The media put the spotlight on AIG business practices. They make it seem reprehensible, they invent a ‘wave of rage’. The UPI is there with twin rage lines: Tidal wave of rage at AIG's Liddy hits hard at Obama too as well as Wall Street greed feeds populist rage across the US. It is easy to find a middle class hairdresser or teacher to express jealousy over what the best and the brightest can do if they set their minds on it. Shooting fish in a barrel.

Tidal Wave Of Rage--Including Obama’s

Our Dear Leader expresses outrage and wants to blame everyone and everything. When it looked like things were going well, Obama was taking responsibility. Now he has flip-flopped, and some blame Chris Dodd. However Dodd may not be at fault, as detailed in this surprisingly good article by liberal Glenn Greenwald:
What actually happened is the opposite. It was Dodd who did everything possible -- including writing and advocating for an amendment -- which would have applied the limitations on executive compensation to all bailout-receiving firms, including AIG, and applied it to all future bonus payments without regard to when those payments were promised. But it was Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who openly criticized Dodd's proposal at the time and insisted that those limitations should apply only to future compensation contracts, not ones that already existed.
It is Obama, with his cronies Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who are to be held accountable for the TARP law explicitly permitting the retention bonuses.

The Government Needs To Stop Meddling – and making it worse

As noted above, government regulation created the housing market collapse in the first place, by forcing banks to lend to bad credit risks. There are many that said Uncle Sam should never have bailed out AIG – that Chapter 13 bankruptcy would have been preferable. Prediction: Continued government interference in the economy will only make it worse. Why do they persist?

Role of Money Managers in AIG Recovery

The best and the brightest work 60-80 hours a week on Wall Street, and they have since Ike was a messcook. Their reward is monetary. If the monetary reward isn’t there, why should they work that hard? When the incentive for the best and the brightest goes away, they will go elsewhere. By the way, it isn’t just the Wall Street Winners that put in 80 hour weeks – just about any successful small business owner works those hours as well.

Before you argue that these money managers are to blame ‘well isn’t the economic recession their fault’ I will tell you emphatically no. First of all, the worst offenders have left AIG. Those that remain are vitally needed to restore the business. Second, the recession was caused by the government decision that every American should own a house, no matter how bad a risk they might be. Third, if you insist on penalizing AIG money mangers, then why isn’t your rage directed at the UAW for the Big Three Failure? Same principle, isn’t it?

Fact is: people on Wall Street and elsewhere have received bonuses for decades. This year is no different. Even WalMart gave out $2 Billion in bonuses today. More than ten times what AIG gave. Smart businesses reward their employees, because they know they need they cannot succeed without them.

Obama, Frank, Pelosi and Reid cannot escape responsibility for the mess

True, the initial government bailout happened on Bush’s watch. But Obama voted for it, along with the rest of the saber-rattlers. Moreover, the above TARP law specifically giving government endorsement to these bonuses was passed just a month ago. They must appease the so-called ‘mainstream media’.

They should do so by telling them – Washington should say::
‘We knew about these bonuses. We explicitly gave AIG the bailout money with that knowledge. Moreover, we are not going to retroactively tell AIG how to run its business. If we had any doubts about AIG’s success, we would not have bought the company.’
Because if the government continues down the current path, there is no turning back. AIG’s reputation will suffer greatly, to the extent it may cost the government another $100 Billion to try to keep them afloat. If enough people leave AIG for greener pastures, AIG will just fail, taking the governments 80% ownership with it. Game over.

No Moral Authority to Act, Either

The government is acting arbitrarily in seeking to double tax these payments, though lawfully received. There can be no moral authority claimed in government-mandated abrogation of contracts. If we let Obama tax the bonuses of these hard-working people, there is another danger. That is Obama will start looking elsewhere to rattle his saber and seek ‘social justice’. And when they run out of rich, they will go after the middle class. That is what did Argentina in.

Bailout Mess – Huge Catalyst for Uncertainty

If the economy, and amount of capital for investment depends on uncertainty, shouldn’t the administration be providing stability? They would do this by doing predictable things. Instead, the message that Obama is sending is We will act arbitrarily, act in haste, act without legal or moral precedent. We will punish those that we see fit to punish according to the whim of the day. This is the high point of unpredictability

Effect of Increased Government Meddling

Each time the government passes a new law and creates a bailout, proposes a new tax, another change, another forced investment in bad risks, it creates uncertainty, and the market reacts. Given increasing uncertainty, professional money managers are certain to disdain investment. The market hates uncertainty. That is why the VIX has been above 40 pretty much since last October. Note from that graph, the S&P 500 has moved down in the face of uncertainty. Indeed, the Great Depression was also a time of prolonged uncertainty. Investment and the economy depend on certainty. Right now, the only thing the professional money manager is sure of is the unpredictability of the incumbents.

Barney Frank (who perhaps doesn’t really care about future generations since he will not have any) and the other democrats want to appear to be doing something, because the mainstream media will not leave them alone. Barney Frank in particular has more responsiblity for this mess than the rest. The media does not hold them accountable for their actions.

Conclusion:

Perhaps we should never have bailed out AIG. But now that we have, we must leave AIG alone to try to recover. Continued harassment of AIG will only lead to its failure. Sixty years on, the debate may still rage. However, you read it here first. If the government taxes "AIG excesses" then it won't stop there. The witch hunt for the big incomes will be on, and it is Game Over.

You might ask, ‘Bob, why are democrats so damned incompetent when it comes to the economy?’ They are not incompetent. They know they are destroying the economy. They just don’t care.

14 comments:

OBloodyHell said...

> They are not incompetent. They know they are destroying the economy. They just don’t care.


There's an implicit assumption there that it's not fully intentional -- which is doubtful, particularly when you grasp that Obama is a socialist, had parents who were socialists, and went to one of the more socialist schools in the USA, Columbia.

Don't make the leftard mistake of assuming that it's even vaguely possible for anyone who made it to be PotUS in modern times to be stupid. With the vaguely possible exception of Harding, I don't see that as really possible. Anyone -- and I do mean ANY ONE -- who can play politics that well is at least rat shrewd.

There's nothing in the process which weeds out the morally contemptible, but there are all manner of barriers to the dense, stupid, and truly clueless.

Senators, Congressbozos, yeah -- they can certainly be all those things. But to advance from there (or state leadership) to the PotUS position is a matter of (as one primary talent) impressively shrewd political calculation in every case.

==============

I also point any readers once more, to:
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
I know you read it, bob-LA, but other readers may not.

For YOU (and the readers, if they like reading interesting analysis), I suggest:
Barack Obama and Alinsky's Rules for Psychopaths

And, by all means, please do note -- this information was all available before November.
;oP

I tried to get people to read it, to realize what might be afoot, but noooooo one wanted to hear. Even the #$^#$%^& conservatives were saying he was "little worse than McCain".

Well, guess what? He's FAR worse than McCain, and always was. McCain's voting record showed what he would be and do as PotUS.

Obama's history, his history of socialism and socialist support, his repeated connections to those whose background was anti-American, radical, and sketchy at best -- a veritable Round Table of people who thrive on Chaos -- was right out there for all to see.

And no one wanted to believe it, for some weird reason.

*sigh*.

bobn said...

First, things we can agree on:

I agree that Obama, Geithner, and Summers are all economic morons and worse. And they do own this particular fiasco.

Rahm Emanuel's line about "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before" - meaning always capitalize on massive misfortunes of your fellow man for political gain and to push through your agenda - puts me in mind of Nazis and Bolsheviks.


HOWEVER: What amazing inaccuracies:

The bonuses are going to money managers.

The very article this text links to states: "And at the heart of that outrage? The contracts that A.I.G. signed promising $165 million in bonuses to employees at its financial products team, the business that generated billions of dollars in losses." The articale you link to stating that the worst malefactors are gone offers no proof of this at all. It is the sellers of unbacked insurance known as CDS that you seek to label "money managers" and whose virtues you extol. Surely this is money management that we can do without. These people should be prosecuted, not rewarded.

And the concept that those remaining are needed to fix the problem is absurd, for 2 reasons. 1) They aren't fixing anything - they are just using govenment money to pay off the bad bets. 2) There is no fixing of the CDS problem short of nullifying all the contracts that were sold by those with no resources to pay and all the contracts that were bought by those not owning the reference securities and forcing whatever is left onto an exchange so that it can at least be understood. And the people receiving the bonuses are the last people we could expect to do that.

As noted above, government regulation created the housing market collapse in the first place, by forcing banks to lend to bad credit risks.

My god, another "CRA_caused-this" true believer. 3 words: Yield spread premium. Google is your friend. Also see here, here and here, including contained links. Those who misunderstand the past are doomed to repeat it.

I agree the bailout of AIG should not have happened - but that nonsense was started on Bush's watch as I recall. AIG should be unwound and the folks that work in the CDS side of the house put onto the street. Unfortunately, Paulson, Summers and Geithner are all of a type. It's hard to see them doing anything that will end the madness.

Bob in Los Angeles said...

Bobn Thanks for reading and commenting. I'm glad to see we have some common ground.

While you quibble with a few of the details, you do not state disagreement with the overall premise here, which is: Obama, the press and saber-rattling democrats are destroying the economy.

I'll look at the information you link in your Liberative blog and reply soonest, probably this weekend. I'm lucky enough to have a job so I plan on keeping it. Thanks

OBloodyHell said...

> My god, another "CRA_caused-this" true believer

When you actually disprove my own arguments, bob, and stop trying to blame the whole thing on Bush, ignoring the vastly more relevant part of the Dems all around and Clinton to an extent then you'll be able to get more attention.

So far, 90% of your argument is analyzing the actual numbers AT the failure and ignoring the causative events leading UP to those numbers being the case at all.

The Dems, the CRA, and the GSEs are about 65% of this crisis. Bush & the GOP about 25% (mainly due to timidity more than direct action. Failure to act -- and forcefully -- and/or reject actions by the Dems, rather than doing something explicitly wrong), 10% general stupidity on the part of money market managers, and 5% greedy homeowners who wanted something for nothing.

The biggest problem with the GOP over the 4 years from 2002-2006 is their refusal to stand up to the Dems when they had the power to do so, and all the Dems could do was threaten to hold their breath until they turned blue, stomp their feet, and scream "I WANT IT! I WANT IT! I WANT IT!!! NOWWWWWWW!!!". Every time the Dems did that, though, the GOP caved.

As Bernard Goldberg so aptly titled his 2006 book, "Crazies to the Left of me, Wimps to the Right".

How the GOP got that way I can't really quite grasp.

bobn said...

OBH: I keep linking to my posts on the CRA myth and you keep ignoring it. STFU. Here's a statistic: AT MOST, 15% of subprime came from outfits under control of CRA. That's the upper bound. For reasons I've already discussed, and which you've already ignored, it is almost certainly much lower. And once again you commit the error of neglecting Alt-A, Option ARM and jumbo loans. STFU.

As for the GSEs, they were under executive branch control. OFHEO could have done something and did not - Bush's OFHEO. STFU.

I know it's your big Objectivist wet dream to blame CRA for subprime, but it just ain't so. Carl and MaxedOutMama have both dismissed this out of hand.

So STFU.

bobn said...

While you quibble with a few of the details, you do not state disagreement with the overall premise here, which is: Obama, the press and saber-rattling democrats are destroying the economy.

Which is such a shame, because it was doing so well before. NOT. The economy - not just the markets, which are secondary phenomena - has been fucked for a long time. Hank Paulson got caught trying to paper over the toxic crap with bullshit in the MLEC (or Super-SIV) in fall of 2007 - this has been coming for a *long* time and however corrupt or stupid Obama and his people are, they didn't cause this. The very worst things they are doing is carrying on the "bailouts" of the previous administration.

I want big outfits to be *afraid* of government bailouts, not to regard them as yet another target of plunder. They should be wetting themselves at the idea of accepting *our* money. These greedy fucks are getting a free ride on our money and they think they have the right to give themselves and each other "retention bonuses"? Fuck that, we're better without these guys.

I voted for McCain, BTW.

Other bits and my reactions:

It is easy to find a middle class hairdresser or teacher to express jealousy over what the best and the brightest can do if they set their minds on it.

The best and brightest swindlers, you mean.

It is Obama, with his cronies Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who are to be held accountable for the TARP law explicitly permitting the retention bonuses.

True.

Moreover, we are not going to retroactively tell AIG how to run its business.

Are you out of your mind?

There can be no moral authority claimed in government-mandated abrogation of contracts.

Unless they are UAW conttracts - then it's OK?

Continued harassment of AIG will only lead to its failure.

AIG's failure is completely cooked in. It's delusional to thinkj otherwise and it is time to cut our losses and stop paying off bad bets made by Goldman Sachs and foreign banks.

Bob in Los Angeles said...

Bobn: does your fantasy about corporate money recipients also apply to individual recipients? How do you feel about Octomom and food stamps for example? And could you respond with fewer than five references to the 'f' word please?

bobn said...

How do you feel about Octomom and food stamps for example?

Re: Octomom: Utterly obscene. I am not against helping poor people with children, but the system that allowed this travesty is just too screwed up for words. And in this case it is actually hurting all 14 of this woman's poor children. Why the state has not removed the children from this demonstrably deranged woman is at question that needs looking into.

Just as a starter, if you're on the dole, IVF should be off the list of supported. It is hard to imagine anything sillier than taxpayers creating more dependents. I hope this bit of insanity is limited to California.

In general I oppose corporate welfare utterly. I think individual welfare and food-stamps for poor people is a different case on which many people can reasonably disagree. I think some help is necessary. I think it's not always handled well.

And could you respond with fewer than five references to the 'f' word please?

My response to you only had 2. ;-) My response to OBH was of course more laden with references. OBH and I bring out the worst in each other. Oh well.

bobn said...

My response to you only had 2.

Ooops, 3. I was matching case.

BTW OBH, your links on Obama and Alinsky were quite interesting. This is a scary sort of background for POTUS.

bobn said...

does your fantasy about corporate money recipients

"Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself"

And also at the graphic at Where AIG Bailout Money Went.

As noted, none of "the best and brightest" are fixing anything - they are just funneling the money to AIG counterparties, with the biggest beneficiary being - surprise! - Goldman Sachs.

Ain't free enterprise wonderful?

OBloodyHell said...

> OBH: I keep linking to my posts on the CRA myth and you keep ignoring it.

No, I've read them. They're bullshit, and I've explained why time and again, so STFU yourself. All you do is point at the fact that it accelerated and went into orbit in 2003 and 2004, and by that time the CRA was only a portion of the problem and attempt to claim that it therefore all and only the stuff that happened then, ignoring the fact that the only reason it could accelerate and go into orbit was the very firm launch pad created in the 1990s... by Democrats..

Not once have you refuted this, nor my own detailed point-for-point note of relevent events.

> As for the GSEs, they were under executive branch control. OFHEO could have done something and did not - Bush's OFHEO. STFU.

Riiiiiight. You mean the OFHEO, which brought charges to the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by Barney Frank? That OFHEO?

The charges brought by OFHEO to the attention of Barney Frank, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, regarding his former live-in housemate, Frank Raines?

The charges stifled in committee by Franks, etal, as a final "reach around" to his ex-lover Raines?

The charges stifled in committee and brushed under the rug by Frank and the Senate Dems, as shown by a video collecting C-Span footage of said Dems in their own words, that you can hardly have missed if you actually gave a damn? The video that I myself have pointed people to, here and elsewhere?

The video that has Frank and various other Senate Banking Committee Democrats, in their own words, as of 2004, stating that the GSEs were doing a "fine job", that they had "done nothing wrong", and that they were "in good financial order", and, in fact, castigating instead the OFHEO official who brought the charges to the SBC's attention? The video with Barney Frank saying, and I believe I quote exactly, "I want to roll the dice some more with Fannie Mae"??

That OFHEO????

> Carl and MaxedOutMama have both dismissed this out of hand.

Carl has done no such thing. He doesn't fully agree with me, but he hasn't ruled it out, either.

And one reason I don't read MoM on a regular basis is that I don't agree with her on enough stuff that I have the sort of supreme faith you put in her judgement... at least when it matches up with something you want to believe anyway.

> Which is such a shame, because it was doing so well before. NOT.

Bob, basic suggestion: The "NOT" meme? It's dead. D-A-Y-E-D *dead*.

It's kind of like the NAZI meme -- it's generally to be avoided as much as possible because it's been overused to the point of excess.

And, unlike the NAZI meme, it's NEVER actually applicable to anything.

> I want big outfits to be *afraid* of government bailouts, not to regard them as yet another target of plunder.

bobn, I actually agree with you on this one. A bailout should have *hurt*. It should have been something which cost the ones in charge of accepting it dearly. Not so dearly that they didn't see the benefit in taking it if they needed it, but sufficiently that it did not look attractive enough to be accepted if there was ANY reasonable way to avoid it.

And EVERY company that got it should have been inarguably a company "too big to allow to fail", and EVERY one of them should have been required to submit a breakup plan which tore the company into parts of sufficiently smaller size that they WERE, in the future, small enough to fail.

>>> There can be no moral authority claimed in government-mandated abrogation of contracts.
> Unless they are UAW conttracts - then it's OK?

I made this comment to bob-la, too. I think that both can be abrogated as a part of the process of accepting the bailout monies.

In general, if "bankruptcy" is what you got saved from, then anything which results from bankruptcy is on the table as still possible. The idea is to avoid the worst of it, not necessarily to prevent ANY and ALL of those results.

OTOH, I do agree that there is a bit of an issue with regards to raising this issue AFTER the fact, when it was so clearly in evidence before the fact.

> It is hard to imagine anything sillier than taxpayers creating more dependents.

It is, however, official Democratic party policy. Iz Pravda, tovarisch.

> The best and brightest swindlers, you mean.

The most critical problem here is that, as I've indicated to bob-la in private e-mails, there is a history of substantial executive compensation coming in the form of bonuses. The average person, however, tends to perceive (correctly) that bonuses are merit rewards for good work. After all, that is what THEY get bonuses for, a one-time reward for good work in place of a raise which requires constant future payment.

And therein lies the disconnect -- they (the public) perceive these bonuses as merit rewards paid out to people who clearly have not demonstrated merit.

a) The proper solution is for the difference to be clearly framed and explained. This, of course, should be the job of the news media. The problem with that is that we no longer have "news media" but "infotainment", part of which seeks to lather up the public into a constant state of high dudgeon.

b) I do think that this shows further bad judgement on the part of AIG execs and anyone else accepting bailout funds to make such a bald-faced payout to its execs in a time of economic distress, out of monies provided by taxpayers. At the least, it's a rather obvious PR nightmare (not unlike the brilliant idea from someone in the Obama admin to attempt to have the VA charge the private insurance of soldiers for treatment -- apparently everyone is entitled to free government health care except those who most clearly have earned it). In both those cases, simple consideration of the PR aspects should have put up a red flag for careful attention and consideration.

> And also at the graphic at Where AIG Bailout Money Went.

Uh, yeah, what's the question? At that level of analysis, what did you think it would do? Fund the candy store merchant down the street? The entire problem was all the damned interlocking financial interests. The money in question is clearly doing to be paid out to those financial interests that otherwise would go down like dominoes if their interest in AIG turned to sh**. I believe the operative term here is: "F'in Duh"

(P.S., note my avoidance of the actual "F" word there, bobn. I tend to think it's silly but it does ameliorate most complaints and ire).

> Ain't free enterprise wonderful?

You bet your f***ing ass, bobn. Despite all this crap, the shelves at the grocery store are stocked with food, and re-stocked daily. The gas stations have all the gas I have any rational reason to buy. If I walk into Sam's Club, I look around and see a vast array of items I can purchase, most with a moment's notice, others within a few months' extra work or saving efforts (most of the time, perhaps not now).

Now contrast this image with Soviet citizens standing in line to buy a couple rolls of industrial grade toilet paper or a handful of gnarly shriveled carrots you could not even sell at my local grocery store.

So, yeah, bobn -- free enterprise is downright f***ing AWESOME, and you should get down on your hands and knees and thank God or whatever diety or natural force it is that made this nation what it is, along with the Founding Fathers who had the wit and wisdom to make it as much so as they themselves did, and that same force that put you in it with a silver spoon in your mouth for so long you've forgotten just how spectacularly good you, and all Americans, pretty much, have it...

N'cest-pas?

OBloodyHell said...

P.S., I'm put in mind by bobn's comments about free enterprise of a Dilbert from many years ago...

Dogbert stands there with a crown and a scepter and proclaims (successive panels) to Dilbert:

================================================
"This is a test of the Emergency Monarch System..."

"This is only a test..."

"If this were an actual emergency, you would already be wretched"
================================================

.

.

.

(hopefully the snorfle works even without the actual toon -- but you do have to understand the basis for the term "wretched" to Really Get It).

.

bobn said...

OBH,

CRA fails to explain the newly-built huge ex-urban ghost-towns in CA, AZ, FL and others - because it only "required" banks to loan where they got their deposits. It also wholly fail's to explain Alt-A and Option ARMS, which happened in middle-class and higher neighborhoods.

The OFHEO is in the executive branch. You might want to read that again. It is part of HUD. It's been in the news for loosening GSE lending once the crisis hit, (a hideously misbegotten policy, but there we are), so obviously it has the control. The fact that some congress-critters gave them shit is besides the point.

As for the NOT meme - the idea that things were in very bad shape before it became obvious even to morons like you, just go through the archives of the economic blogs I link to on my blog. Lots of people saw this coming. I saw it autumn 2007 - which is why I got interested, for the first time ever, in gun-ownership. Just as an example, if you subtract the money puumped into the economy by cash-out refis enabled by the bubble, the "Bush recovery" disappears.

I made this comment to bob-la, too. I think that both can be abrogated as a part of the process of accepting the bailout monies.

In general, if "bankruptcy" is what you got saved from, then anything which results from bankruptcy is on the table as still possible. The idea is to avoid the worst of it, not necessarily to prevent ANY and ALL of those results.


OK, I'll take that as long as it goes both ways.

the brilliant idea from someone in the Obama admin to attempt to have the VA charge the private insurance of soldiers for treatment -- apparently everyone is entitled to free government health care except those who most clearly have earned it).

And I'll agree with that too.

a) The proper solution is for the difference to be clearly framed and explained.

No, the proper solution is "your company is insolvent because of stuff *you* did and you should be glad you're still getting *anything*."

The money in question is clearly doing to be paid out to those financial interests that otherwise would go down like dominoes if their interest in AIG turned to sh**. I believe the operative term here is: "F'in Duh"

CDS is insurance, minus regulation, thanks to deregulationists. When you write insurance that cannot possibly be paid, there is a word for that: FRAUD. And all those big guys that were buying this crap knew it because they were doing the same thing. So why am I on the hook for paying off FRAUD? Trillions for big business, nothing for human beoings? Your fascist leanings become clear.

That's right - FASCIST. Nothing else describes the unholy alliance of big business and government that you and Bob-in-LA are supporting.

Ain't free enterprise wonderful?

Sorry you missed my point - making taxpayer bail out losers and swindlers isn't free enterprise. You'd know that if you weren't a fascist.

bobn said...

Carl has done no such thing. He doesn't fully agree with me, but he hasn't ruled it out, either.

Fascist *and* illiterate - a common combination:

CRAcked: It wasn't CRA. Period.