We might have to nationalize the banks. Mother of jesus.
Last edited by ATG (2009-02-15 16:45:37)
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- This is what eight years of failure lead to (nationalizing banks)
This will not end well.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Silly me, and I thought 911 was the result of 8 years of failure.
"have to" ... I think not
Stingray24 wrote:
"have to" ... I think not
Well then at least then Bank of America will finally do what it says on the tin
Yes they "have to", before it is too late and the economy improves without a "stimulous"Stingray24 wrote:
"have to" ... I think not
lindsey graham is one of "them" now?
Can someone explain to me in great detail how this is a bad thing? Hasn't the banks proven to be incapable of doing their jobs right on several levels?
The man has a point.lowing wrote:
Silly me, and I thought 911 was the result of 8 years of failure.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
8 years of failure and an embarrassing memo.Kmarion wrote:
The man has a point.lowing wrote:
Silly me, and I thought 911 was the result of 8 years of failure.
This centralizes even more power to the politicians. Something that is quite detrimental to a true republic.Macbeth wrote:
Can someone explain to me in great detail how this is a bad thing? Hasn't the banks proven to be incapable of doing their jobs right on several levels?
So beside the politicians becoming a bit more powerful is there any other real reason against it?Stingray24 wrote:
This centralizes even more power to the politicians. Something that is quite detrimental to a true republic.Macbeth wrote:
Can someone explain to me in great detail how this is a bad thing? Hasn't the banks proven to be incapable of doing their jobs right on several levels?
Banks give out loans. To start and run a business you need loans. If the banks are state controlled the state also controls who gets loans.Macbeth wrote:
So beside the politicians becoming a bit more powerful is there any other real reason against it?Stingray24 wrote:
This centralizes even more power to the politicians. Something that is quite detrimental to a true republic.Macbeth wrote:
Can someone explain to me in great detail how this is a bad thing? Hasn't the banks proven to be incapable of doing their jobs right on several levels?
Therefore nationalizing banks pretty much nationalizes the whole economy.
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
Um so isn't that a good thing? So we don't get into the mess we're into now with screwed up loans? Wouldn't the politicians want whats produces the most money for the country so that they could stay in office and raise their pay?max wrote:
Banks give out loans. To start and run a business you need loans. If the banks are state controlled the state also controls who gets loans.Macbeth wrote:
So beside the politicians becoming a bit more powerful is there any other real reason against it?Stingray24 wrote:
This centralizes even more power to the politicians. Something that is quite detrimental to a true republic.
Therefore nationalizing banks pretty much nationalizes the whole economy.
Do you not know what started this whole downturn?Macbeth wrote:
Um so isn't that a good thing? So we don't get into the mess we're into now with screwed up loans? Wouldn't the politicians want whats produces the most money for the country so that they could stay in office and raise their pay?
Last edited by LividBovine (2009-02-15 19:38:37)
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
If you're a communist you'll like a nationalized economy. If you believe in capitalism, freedom, apple pie and that stuff not so much
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
I guess I'm just not that paranoid anymore.max wrote:
If you're a communist you'll like a nationalized economy. If you believe in capitalism, freedom, apple pie and that stuff not so much
1984Macbeth wrote:
Um so isn't that a good thing? So we don't get into the mess we're into now with screwed up loans? Wouldn't the politicians want whats produces the most money for the country so that they could stay in office and raise their pay?max wrote:
Banks give out loans. To start and run a business you need loans. If the banks are state controlled the state also controls who gets loans.Macbeth wrote:
So beside the politicians becoming a bit more powerful is there any other real reason against it?
Therefore nationalizing banks pretty much nationalizes the whole economy.
Exxxxxcellent...easy pickings this one is.Macbeth wrote:
I guess I'm just not that paranoid anymore.max wrote:
If you're a communist you'll like a nationalized economy. If you believe in capitalism, freedom, apple pie and that stuff not so much
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
predictable and boring.lowing wrote:
Silly me, and I thought 911 was the result of 8 years of failure.
Ahhhhhh, but not boring enough for you to ignore.BN wrote:
predictable and boring.lowing wrote:
Silly me, and I thought 911 was the result of 8 years of failure.
If there was a terrorist attack within six months of O's election I would blame the Bush team for not stopping it, not O.
AQ usually takes years to plan something big.
AQ usually takes years to plan something big.
luckily, we're fighting two wars right now, so AQ can't attack us.ATG wrote:
If there was a terrorist attack within six months of O's election I would blame the Bush team for not stopping it, not O.
AQ usually takes years to plan something big.
no sir... If anything happens now... it's all on BO... we didn't blame Clinton for sleeping on Bin Laden when he had the chance to take him out... fair is fair... you take the good with the bad as president... and on that note... I pray to God the terrorist animals don't attack any country including the US...
Love is the answer
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- This is what eight years of failure lead to (nationalizing banks)