Does GM still own the GMAC funding operation? Does GE still own the lending group it put together? If so, the ban could kind of, sort of, be understood. However, I though both of those operations had been spun off.

Q; What is a neo-conservative ?

A: A marxist who has been bribed.

Lastly, for those of you having an "oh shit we are in serious trouble and we could go down the tubes" moment... Welcome to GW Bush's world when getting info about WMD's in Iraq. It doesn't matter that the info was wrong or incomplete, it's that he saw possibilities of disaster, that the left will not accept in hindsight.

-- shooter242

This is why I don't understand why you're still here, Shooter. You've been telling the same pack of lies for years now to no avail. But you persist. WTF, man. Go someplace else and see if you can start fresh. We've handed your lying head back to now so many times. Just go away. It has become more than pathetic seeing you hang around telling the same lies year after year.

How would that work? With any slavery, and feudalism is slavery, you need a strong controlling government to keep the slaves in line.

Actually, all you need is a strongman with a gun telling you to get back to work, which is a kind of "government."

Since Ron Paul supports our constitution, are you saying that our constitution, if followed to the letter, would result in slavery?

It did up until 1865, after we fought a civil war over it.

242 was that you who was seen with one shined shoe in Pizza Hut?

suitor? No one @ UT will bail you out for stealing fast-food napkins.

You are viewed @ you-tube shining one show with used pieces of tp?

If You go to DC, be careful. Watch out. Cranky GOPS go congregate.

They gather there for some reason, and moan for decades. `Bad sex?

What's wrong with the Right-Wing. Locals Nicknamed 'um, Chickens.

Saying,`We residents of DC `got `de Chicken-Wing GOP surrounded.

They note: `Capital Hill gangs, visit `de worst whore houses in town.

Clear?

Note: when the Paulson Plan was made public over the weekend, it was denounced far and wide as OUTRAGEOUS!!!™ because he demanded unlimited Power over All That Money without oversight or accountability. And ever since, it hasn't been about the Money, has it? It's about Paulson's Power. He's going to get the Money -- and he's going to get more power than any Treasury Secretary has ever had.

So essentially the "debate" was short-circuited. What's wrong and what's best to do about it has not been "debated" at all, and won't be as long as the current regime is in office. There is a demand for Money, a lot of it, NOW! And that demand will be met. It will happen in as Autocratic a manner as possible. You and I will get to pay.

And that is all there is to it.

You are viewed @ you-tube shining one show with used pieces of tp?--Good Celery!

That one is going viral.

There's a new "stupidest f@cking guy on the planet", and he goes by the handle shooter242.

As far as alternatives, there are plenty of them out there. I like this one:

http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080922.htm

In short, we don't get assets, we get the banks - the whole effin' things. Or we put up senior debt, ahead in line of any current bondholders. Either way, existing equity gets wiped out.

Then we can talk about securities fraud prosecutions.

It doesn't matter that the info was wrong or incomplete, it's that he saw possibilities of disaster, that the left will not accept in hindsight.
-Shooter

Let's polish that up a bit, shall we?

In fearing a disaster, Bush created a disaster based on information which, as it turns out, was wrong, incomplete, or distorted to the point of fabrication.

How do you feel about making trades on information which is wrong, incomplete, or distorted to the point of fabrication, Shooter? Oh, wait... That's kind of the mess you're looking at right now, isn't it? And, you want folks to get ginned up anxious to forgive your ass for that, too?

I'm not sure the Left, Right, or Center is much in a forgiving mood.

gee. poor Glenn. (Right-wing GOP's always drop the ball. Go golf and choke?)

A proverb states:` The dogs will return to the regurgitated vomit and slurp 'it'.

A little leaguer, heru-ur, hurries out to Left field, and gazes at clouds to daydream.

The Right fielder's scratches thee groin with a catcher mitt. 'um use dirty condoms?

"The last few days I thought it might be okay provided there was oversight and taxpayer ownership."

The plan that was published (the only published plan I have seen) did not have any taxpayer ownership. The only "upside" for us poor slobs was all the "profit" we would enjoy when the assets were healed. Oh, and ponies - I'm pretty sure we'll get ponies, too.

I'd love to see someone suggest that taxpayer money buy into these firms, instead of just buying off their impaired assets. Not because I want that to happen, but because the reaction would be so telling. Personally, I predict that would be another "deal-breaker". Which would just be a shame.

It doesn't matter that the info was wrong or incomplete, it's that he saw possibilities of disaster ...

There was some guy standing in front of my office this morning; he was carrying a duffel bag and looked shifty so I shot him.

That's okay, isn't it?

You must be all moved in now and back within your comfort level as you've reverted to your usual nonesense. For a moment there I thought you might be capable of transcending your market worship and loooking at this proposal from the standpoint of a citizen and a taxpayer. From that perspective you should find it unacceptable as do the vast majority of the American people. You are back amongst the 28%'ers who represent the rank and file of pure authoritarianism.

How else can one explain your current rant -- that the taxpayer should not only hand Paulson a trillion dollar check but a "Good Samaritan" clause to boot -- except as purely a reaction against those who didn't immediately fall in line?

If this were a business proposition between two parties, there isn't anyone on Wall Street who would involve themselves on the unprotected end of such a one-sided equation and you know it.

"Unless whatever Paulson did was absolutely perfect and under budget, some idiot Congress person is going to came back later and flay Paulson with hearings and the courts..."

Actually from what I've read the protection is aimed against possible future actions brought by the companies, but whatever, it's unacceptable. Wall Street wants to live in a risk-free environment and now so does Paulson. Tough shit. As far as I'm concerned they can all FOAD and if the Great Pain unfolds I'll tighten my butthole and get by on unadulterated schadenfreude.

As for your assertion that Bush has been flayed with hearings and courts, you'll only get snickers trying to float that here. Bush has been acting under an unwritten "hold harmless" provision for almost eight years, try as you might to fashion some epic martyrdom for him.

And he lied us into an illegal, immoral invasion which no amount of revisionist history will wipe from the record.

"For those of you that disagree with the idea of Paulson's plan, what do you have to offer, and are you ready to be investigated and prosecuted if it doesn't work? That's what Paulson faces."

Are we ready to be prosecuted for having an idea or plan? I imagine the Bush years have brought us closer to that possibility than ever before, but I'm sure that anyone who went beyond simply having a plan to being vested with the responsibilty of Paulson's position wouldn't expect a "good samaritan" clause. The risk of answering to the courts is part of living in society, at least (theoretically) from the people with the least authority to the people with the most. You act as if Paulson is being denied some common standard that others are granted. Besides, your question is fallacious. He's not in danger of being "investigated and prosecuted if it doesn't work". If that were the standard the entire Bush administration would be talking to their loved ones through a thick pane of glass.

The markets are up right now Shooter. And the banks seem to be lending to each other again. What are you economic armageddonists going to do if there isn't a crises today?