Nan Socolow, in turn, gagged on a Douthat, but managed to turn out this comment anyway:
Gingrich Redux! The Second Coming of Newt Gingrich! So there you were, Mr. Douthat, swilling martinis, scarfing pricey canapes high on the hog at a Washington DC GOP cocktail party. And everyone was giggling at the prospect of Newt's return to the Republican cosmos? And then there were the polls - media-hyped with the intensity that has typified our bizarro political mondo of today - and Newt got a BUMP in the polls (I see a python swallowing a big pig, that kind of bump)! So what? This Poll Bump was preceded by all the other bumps - Trump, Christie, Palin, Pawlenty, Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, Cain, all gone down in flames, all toast now.And you announce that Newtie is framing 2012 in manichean terms. Why treat us to the polysyllabic word "manichean" instead of saying that Newt's present GOP ethos is just the early Iranian struggle between the Power of Good (the Tea Party?) and the Power of Evil (Guess who?). Manichean doesn't cut the mustard.Alas, despite his demeanor as a handsome Big Cheese, Romney is unelectable. All the other Right Wing contenders are crashing and burning and soon Romney will be the Cheese standing alone. And you think Newt Gingrich is electable? If his bump is anything more than the usual pig in a python of GOP politics I'll eat my flipflops.
Newtie is the perfect Cerberus, the dog with big heads guarding the Underworld of the Extreme Right and not allowing anyone to escape. And as for Gingrich's chances of winning the Presidency (or even the nomination next summer), with his checkered background and gynormous blots on his copybook - several wives, several religions, his essential narcissism and Tiffany line of credit, his chances are slim to none. As Porky Pig used to laugh and stutter at the end of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoons - "e-be-dee, e-be-dee, th- th- that's all folks!"
 |
| Newterus at the Right-Wing Gates (graphic by Kat Garcia) |
Gag on this…
ReplyDeleteNewt Gingrich made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in consulting fees from two contracts with mortgage company Freddie Mac, according to two people familiar with the arrangement.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-16/gingrich-said-to-be-paid-at-least-1-6-million-by-freddie-mac.html
“One can survive everything nowadays, except death, and live down anything except a good reputation.” – Oscar Wilde, A Woman of No Importance
I think it is interesting how desperate the Republicans have become that they are looking at Cain and Gingrich. Personally, I don't pay any attention to the Republican candidates anymore. I think it is all a con game anyway. Why would the corporations and Republicans want to ditch Obama anyway? He is giving them everything they want? Sure they bitch about ObamaCare but we all know it was a giveaway to the health insurance corporations. I don't even really care if it gets overturned. It has nothing to do with a REAL public option or universal health care.
ReplyDeleteI want to respond to one more thing George wrote and then I am done. Since Newt isn’t very interesting and none of us think he is worth a second glance, this space seems like as good a place as any to say my peace. And I am so long winded that I will have to divide this into two parts in order for the comment section to accept my comment!
ReplyDeleteGeorge,
You made a comment a while back saying the banks and corporations weren’t responsible for the bad economy and the crash. Instead it was the average person – who overspent, who bought too big a house, etc.
I’m not going to get into how the big corporations have off-shored as many jobs as possible to Third World countries where they can exploit desperate people, treat them as slave labour and can pollute at will. I won’t talk about how they have, in collusion with bribed politicians, rigged the tax system so that they have full access to our markets but contribute nothing for the privilege. I won’t talk about how in the "good ole days" the reasons corporations were given tax breaks was because they were providing so many jobs that the taxes of their decently paid workforce offset the taxes they would have been duty bound to pay otherwise. And I won’t point out that all those good, middle class and working class jobs are gone so all those people who should be working and paying taxes aren't.
But I will address the whole buying a bigger house than one could afford issue that was a bill of goods sold to us by bankers and real estate people like you!
When my husband (an engineer with a masters’ degree) and I (a teacher with a masters’ degree) bought our house, we bought one that we could afford if one of us lost our job. I can’t tell you how many “well-meaning” friends, bankers, realtors, real-estate speculators (like you) advised us to update our kitchen and bathroom because “we would get it all back and more when we sold.” That it would “improve the value of our house.” They “advised” us to buy as much house as possible even if it meant we were stretched thin financially because we needed to “get into the market.” We heard it so often that we started to doubt our conservative approach. Everyone seemed to be making money on real estate except us. I mean – were we being old-fashioned and stupid not to take advantage of the booming real-estate market?
I can totally understand why normal people of average intelligence and little business sense were suckered into this Ponzi scheme. Bankers knew what they were doing right? They wouldn’t loan us money on a property that wasn’t going to increase in value, would they? Alan Greenspan was encouraging people to use the principle in their houses as free money – pay off the car, pay off the credit cards, invest in another property, update the kitchen. Certainly the head of the Fed knew what he was talking about! And because so many people were doing it and everyone who should have been giving us sensible advice said, “Go for it!” many, otherwise prudent people, were caught up in the mentality.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteThis was the one, big chance average Americans had to get a little piece of the prosperity pie that people like you seemed to have. They speculated a little – you speculated a lot. You got really rich – Why? because you understood the game better than they did. Well good for you. Aren’t you superior? You remind me of the guy that yells, “So long, suckers!” as he runs off with a fortune.
Of all people, YOU should understand how persuasive the “buy real estate” bubble was because it sounds like you were part of it. Why are you so unable to find the compassion within yourself to understand how people were enticed into buying more than they could really afford? Until the giant banks and Republicans and corporate Democrats like Clinton deregulated the banks and tore down Glass Steagal, banks were very wise in how they lent money. The average worker with a high school education wasn’t going to understand that suddenly the banks didn’t know what they were doing – that they couldn’t be trusted to be prudent. The system was working so far wasn’t it? And this was America. People who wanted to work hard would always have a job wouldn’t they? People who had worked for the same company for twenty years were safe buying a little more house than they could really afford weren’t they? Hey, the company was making record profits! The CEOs and CFOs were planning for the future and had a rainy day plan in place didn’t they? After all, that was why they were being paid the big bucks. Their company would never lay people off. Sure families with bigger mortgages might have to tighten their belts and spend less on things like cable TV and clothes but we never foresaw a time when so many of us wouldn’t be able to find a job. We were hard workers and dependable. We had a great work history. People like us could always find a job to pay the bills.
And let’s be totally honest here – the bankers and the corporations made sure they operated in the dark. If it had been clear to everyone how much gambling the investment bankers were doing with “financial products” very few understood - the bundling of bad mortgages and the deceit about the contents of the bundles being sold - the average Joe might have acted otherwise. There was a lot of misleading the public so that the corporate and banking entities could maximise their own profits.
I don’t know if any of this will sink in. Your heart seems pretty hard to me. But to blame the crash on the little guy as opposed to the big guy shows a real lack of history and understanding of how things REALLY went down before the crash.
Garrulous Newt will never be mewt.
ReplyDelete@Valerie
ReplyDeleteBravo Valerie, very well said!
Let me add one more comment about the housing bubble. Does anyone remember the television programs dedicated to flipping houses for profit? One is called ‘Flip That House’, here’s a link http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/flipthathouse/flipthathouse.html
"This half-hour reality series brings the viewer into the latest trend in "buy-sell" house renovation known as "house flipping." Each episode will follow the transformation of a different house, each with its own "flipper/host" familiar with home renovation and real estate."
House flipping is a risky business. So the real estate bubble was not just ordinary people overbuying. It was capitalist engaged in capitalism gone wild that added to the bubble. And when a capitalist can’t pay the mortgage on an investment property, those are the first to go bust, because they don’t live in the property. If the capitalist cannot sustain the investment, or sees the property is a looser, they have a big incentive to just walk away, even declare bankruptcy.
Funny how those in the blame game never mention the capitalists that contributed to the bubble, then walked away from bad investments. And by the way, I’m a capitalist, owned a business for many years, so I’m not anti-capitalist. Just a realist.
Thanks again Valerie. Great comment.
Do you all remember the interview with Michael Hudson on Democracy Now where he suggested that Obama was in Europe pressuring the EU to NOT work with Greece on lowering their debt obligations because the U.S. investment banks were overly exposed by insuring the Greek debt? Firedog Lake has an article that - at least in my mind - confirms Hudson's claims.
ReplyDelete"JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), among the world’s biggest traders of credit derivatives, disclosed to shareholders that they have sold protection on more than $5 trillion of debt globally.
Just don’t ask them how much of that was issued by Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, known as the GIIPS.
As concerns mount that those countries may not be creditworthy, investors are being kept in the dark about how much risk U.S. banks face from a default. Firms including Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan don’t provide a full picture of potential losses and gains in such a scenario, giving only net numbers or excluding some derivatives altogether."
While none of us knows what goes on behind closed doors, it doesn't take a big leap to believe that Obama and Geithner, on behalf of the banks (who have taken on way more risk than they should) wanted to insure that Greece didn't default or that the EU didn't help Greece soften the austerity with a partial default. After all, if the EU helped Greece, then what about Italy, Spain and Portugal? And all that money the U.S. investment banks would have to cough up as insurance. Could they do it? Doubtful. So here we are again with the banks privatising the gains and if the risks didn't pay off, who do you think they would have expected to bail them out? The U.S. taxpayer! thus socialising the losses. And who is carrying water for the big banks? Their ace in the hole, Obama.
Here is the link http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/11/16/us-banks-exposed-to-european-crisis-but-theyre-not-saying-how-much/
Thanks for the link in your sidebar, Karen. That is where I spotted the article.
Valerie,
ReplyDeleteYou sure as hell ain't speaking to the choir. It's the opposite of 'speaking to the choir' when addressing George, whatever that opposite is. But it's a nice job of explaining the economic facts of the case. Well done.
Denis, a statement from the Gingrich campaign:
ReplyDelete"Gingrich has never lobbied for Freddie Mac, or any client, nor has anyone in any of the organizations he founded after leaving office as part of their work with them. Gingrich made a decision after resigning that he would never be a lobbyist so that nobody would ever question the genuine nature of his advice and perspectives. This prohibition against lobbying was made very clear to all Gingrich Group clients and strict internal protocols were developed to prevent lobbying. Today’s Bloomberg article confirms that Gingrich and his firm did no lobbying for Freddie Mac."
So who do we believe?
Valerie, you know so much, but much of it is assumption and incorrect:
ReplyDelete“You made a comment a while back saying the banks and corporations weren’t responsible for the bad economy and the crash. Instead it was the average person – who overspent, who bought too big a house, etc.”
No, that’s not what I said. Banks, mortgage companies and mortgage brokers all had a hand in it but it was the government who pressured lenders to lower lending standards with the objective of increasing home ownership. Government policy is the root cause. Treating the symptoms and not the disease will do nothing to correct it. What the government did, through Fannie and Freddie was assume the risk historically the responsibility of the lender. Lenders no longer cared about risk; they just made the loan, collected their fees, sold the loans and said “next”. In the process they created a whole lot of money out of thin air – thanks to the fractional reserve system. The huge increase in the money supply increased demand and prices started to rise – the race was on.
Regarding real estate you wrote, “They speculated a little – you speculated a lot.”
Sorry, but I never speculated. I lived in every house I’ve owned except one which I still own and rent. Real estate development might be considered speculation because it entails huge risks for the developer.
I applaud your financial prudence but there are millions who are not like you; they did speculate. I personally know a lot of them. Some were very successful and made a lot of money, others made it and subsequently lost it. It was hard to resist. I know because of being approached by friends and business associates to participate.
I didn’t do it because I knew the bubble was going to burst. I mentioned losing money on the last house but we bought the house because we were getting married and wanted a place of our own. Unfortunately the marriage ended in divorce and the house was sold at a loss.
Regarding your statement, “If it had been clear to everyone how much gambling the investment bankers were doing with “financial products” very few understood - the bundling of bad mortgages and the deceit about the contents of the bundles being sold - the average Joe might have acted otherwise.”
Yes, with the exception there probably wasn’t much willful deceit. It was more the sellers not knowing what they were selling and the buyers not caring. I would call it stupidity. The Bernie Madoff case is an interesting example – I’ve yet to shed a tear for any of his “clients”. Some lost everything but I did chuckle at one wealthy investor who claimed he was only “nicked” for a small amount…$20 million…some “nick”.
Your rant about corporations is partially correct but I’ll stop here.
Valerie wrote, “I don’t know if any of this will sink in. Your heart seems pretty hard to me...”
ReplyDeletePerhaps it is but I’m not lacking compassion for others, particularly the young.
Our nation’s debt is now over $15 trillion. If unchecked, it will destroy this country. I can't think of a worse legacy.
The OWS ranting regarding income inequality is a sideshow. Young people coming out of school today with the burden of student loan debt can add another $200,000 to the stack – their share of the national debt.
Kudos to the Tea Party for attempting to put a stop to the runaway government largess while the OWS sound like their big concern is getting a larger share. Or is that the big concern? I’m still waiting for some definition.
@Valerie-- Not sure if you can get through to Georgie. My house buying experience was very similar to yours (We had the same attitude as you-- always assume you may be living on income from one job).
ReplyDeleteBut you know, George fancies himself the clear eyed realist. He could not go to an occupy site because his "head would explode".
It is difficult to be shocked by the shamelessness of Newt, but yes I was when I saw how quickly Newt pivoted from the question of his shilling for Freddie Mac to spreading the myth that the government forced banks to loan to non creditworthy borrowers. Geez, the guy is so, so practiced in deflecting blame. I don't think he even has to think about it for one minute. He just opens his mouth and the lies come out, not of his own volition. He makes my head explode.
Barry Ritholz addresses George:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/business/what-caused-the-financial-crisis-the-big-lie-goes-viral/2011/10/31/gIQAXlSOqM_story.html
Kat wrote, “@Valerie-- Not sure if you can get through to Georgie. My house buying experience was very similar to yours (We had the same attitude as you-- always assume you may be living on income from one job).
ReplyDeleteBut you know, George fancies himself the clear eyed realist. He could not go to an occupy site because his "head would explode".”
I would rather be a clear-eyed realist than a misty eyed idealist.
So what would Kat and Valerie, the fiscally responsible duo who are so proficient at assigning blame, call those who purchased more home than they could afford and are now in deep doo-doo? Are they victims, perpetrators or are they just, to use one of your favorite descriptors, ignorant? Who or what is now responsible for bailing them out?
The FHA will likely be the next exploding bubble if the student loans don’t get there first.
Do we blame the lenders for doing what the government demanded?
Bailing out the banks, or any other business, was/is a bad idea. I’m pretty sick of the Wall Street – Washington DC cabal. Despite being the best economic system yet devised capitalism is a brutal system. The inefficient are usually quickly dispatched unless someone comes to their rescue. If the government told you to jump off a cliff knowing you wouldn’t survive would you do it? There are a lot of banks and other lenders who didn’t participate in the scam. They would probably appreciate the business thrown their way resulting from the failure of those who did. I say let them fail – the idea something is too big to fail is ridiculous.
One comment regarding Germany, the German’s have succeeded in becoming the masters of Europe without firing a shot. Two world wars didn’t do it; they did it economically. They have some natural advantages such as their river transportation system but culture is the big defferentiator. Meanwhile, we are working on becoming the next Greece complete with mob demonstrations.
First let me say I do believe in reasonable regulation - even the well intentioned can get into trouble and do things contra to the public good.
ReplyDeleteHere is my two cents on the business/government connection. When government takes an interest in business, business will take an interest in government. Be it through lobbying, direct political contributions or other means, business will fight to protect business interests. As both a business owner and former corporate executive, there are few aspects of business in which the government does not have its tentacles. They have enormous power to tax and regulate but there is no guarantee the power will be used wisely. One positive example is the improvement in work place safety.
Regarding the lending bubble, my question is quite simple; if the government wasn’t requiring, or at minimum, condoning what was going on why didn’t government simply put a stop to it? Why were some regulators at the SEC and Justice Department (talk about a misnamed agency) watching porn on their computers instead doing their jobs?
Don't try to get anywhere with George. He flip flops more than Mitt Romney! Maybe even as much as Obama. Off the top of my head, here are a few examples that come to me.
ReplyDeleteHe said he "doesn't hang out" at this site. Funny but we've seen him here a lot. That's what the rest of the world calls hanging out. Of course then he announces he is "occupying' Sardonicky. Flip. Flop.
His "personal finances are just that, personal", before he went on at length describing it in order to prove his financial superiority to us. Flip. Flop.
He said "WE" were to blame for the mess, now he says he never said that. 'We' usually includes the writer and the readers. Flip. Flop.
He poses as a person with a brain, but then claims to not know what Occupy is about. Flip. Flop.
No one here is responsible for fetching someone's slippers, newspaper, beer, or for providing them with packaged summaries of information about Occupy, and we certainly aren't going to rename Occupy, as if we even could. We aren't going to write a Occupy business plan for him either. Newsflash: We aren't his servants.
Re: Gingrich lobbying. It depends on what the definition of lobbyist is. 'Parsing' is a word we learned long ago. I guess George was too busy making money to become educated. It shows.
Sorry Anne but I don't think you are up to the task of reading and understanding real issues. Your fall-back position is to demean others. I'll leave you to the company of the half dozen or so other posters who are members of your group-think chorus.
ReplyDeleteIf by some remote chance you are interested in a better understanding of today's political climate read Muzzled, The Assault on Honest Debate by Juan Williams.
Good luck with your utopian enterprise.
"Don't get your undies in a knot", George. Sounds like you are!
ReplyDeleteI'm just quoting you and pointing out your contradictions, although I suspect everyone already noticed. They are pretty obvious.
And what makes you think none of us have read Juan Williams' book? I am certain that we who come to this website are all very well read.
FYI, BookTV on CSpan2 every weekend features non-fiction books and their authors who give interesting lectures on their works and answer questions at various bookstores around the country. It is a good show for sampling books you might want to read, and you can even view the interviews online at any time. Juan Williams was on there a couple months ago.
We're not a bunch of young, ignorant kids on this website, George. You're not going to get away with contradictions or false assumptions without a response.
@George
ReplyDeleteIt seems like you are misinformed with this statement:
"Regarding the lending bubble, my question is quite simple; if the government wasn’t requiring, or at minimum, condoning what was going on why didn’t government simply put a stop to it? Why were some regulators at the SEC and Justice Department (talk about a misnamed agency) watching porn on their computers instead doing their jobs?"
President George Bush ordered the nation to "go shopping" to fight terrorism after the 9-11 attack. Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve instituted monetary policy to facilitate the shopping spree. Bush also started two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, and put them on the national credit card. That blew the budget. Don’t forget George, that President Bill Clinton left office with a budget surplus after creating 23 MILLION JOBS! In contrast Bush only created 3 million jobs. This is reported by the Wall Street Journal, see Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods. The law worked fine from 1977 through 2001 until President George Bush took office and wrecked the economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
The regulators at the SEC and Justice Department were just following the wishes of President George Bush and Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve. (except for the watching porn part, I guess they were just horny)
Oh for the good old days of peace and prosperity under Bill Clinton, 23 million jobs created, and a budget surplus to boot! Since Bill Clinton created 23 million jobs with higher tax rates, and Bush created only 3 million jobs with lower tax rates, it looks like higher tax rates on the rich create more jobs. This may seem counterintuitive to you George, but those are the facts.
OK, I give up on George!
ReplyDeleteThere is this great guy over at RealityChex named Zee. He is a conservative - but a reasonable conservative - someone with the capacity to see both sides of the issue and weigh them in his mind fairly. He is thoughtful and well-read and brings a lot to the discussion, raising good points. I was hoping that George might be a similar type of commenter but he clearly isn't capable of getting beyond the Fox propaganda.
I know the Fox propaganda well. As in the book 1984, Fox watchers seem to have it blaring at them all hours of the day and I have overheard it when visiting relatives. They have a few simple messages that they pound home in chorus. The rest of the time they run silly distraction stories. Here are the propaganda memes – drum roll please! - First they said we shouldn't have bailed out the banks - although they conveniently forget it was Bush who orchestrated the no strings bank bailout. In the Fox version of history it was all Obama’s doing. Then they blamed the homeowner – bad homeowner! Bad middle class person for wanting to get ahead. Know your place! And now they blame the government for FORCING all those banks to give money to those greedy homeowners. So you can see that George gets his opinions and “news” straight from Fox.
Too bad. A thinking and humane conservative would have added an interesting dimension to the discussion. Think I will send an SOS to Zee!
Neil,
ReplyDeleteGeorge doesn't deal in facts. Note he doesn't EVER cite a source - He can't - his source is clearly bad TV!
Let him go away with all his money - which he made sure to tell us all about. He thinks that makes the man. People like George can't imagine that thinking people with good values aspire for more.
Neil, ok, assuming you are correct, what should we do?
ReplyDelete"Let him go away with all his money - which he made sure to tell us all about."
ReplyDeleteCan you point that out? I don't recall saying anything other than my personal finances were just that - personal. That followed your lengthy discussion of how you handled your own home investment.
Valerie, "So you can see that George gets his opinions and “news” straight from Fox."
ReplyDeleteHow many transactions have you done with any of the major Wall Street Firms? Have you had any direct dealings with any of them?
I don't think you know what your talking about.
George, you're still hanging out here!
ReplyDeleteGlad you are, because as a retired nurse I would like to take this opportunity to suggest that you should go see your doctor about your memory problem. Your previously referenced inconsistencies and contradictions may also stem from the same source. If so, I apologize for being hard on you.
You said to Valerie: "Can you point that out? I don't recall saying anything other than my personal finances were just that - personal."
Hang on, George. Here it is in it's entirety. Sorry to see that once again you are asking us to do your homework for you, but that could just be further indication that a medical evaluation is called for. ________________________________
George R says "My personal finances are just that, personal. I have bought and sold nine personal residences in four different states plus constructed and sold 26 to others so I do know a little bit about the real estate business and how real estate transactions are done and mortgages arranged. Eight of the nine personal residences were sold at a gain and the last was sold at a substantial loss. I saw what was happening and dumped it, not a bad move in spite of the loss.
The last home was purchased with a sizeable mortgage for which I produced almost zero documentation regarding income and net worth; lenders were indeed shoving money at prospective borrowers. One did not have to be particularly brilliant to realize the bubble was going to burst. I had seen it twice in California and twice in Maryland; what happened here in FL was no surprise.
I’m not “unrealistically superior” to anyone. My after military service work history started with programmer trainee and ended at the CFO level in a multi-billion dollar corporation. I ran my own real estate business for about ten years after my big evil corporation experience."
__________________________________
Now do you recall?
And, George, as far as asking Valerie how much she knew about transactions on the stock exchange, I can say that I traded stocks for a living for several years during the tech bubble and had thousands of short-term trading transactions so I know all about it. But what was your point of asking?
Make that appointment before you do something foolish and lose all that hard earned money you've made over a lifetime.
Good luck.
@George
ReplyDeleteRe: Neil, ok, assuming you are correct, what should we do?
George, in my view we are past the tipping point. It is as if we are on the Titanic, which is taking on water after hitting an iceberg that ripped a fatal gash in the hull. Time to load the lifeboats. Don’t waste time rearranging the deck chairs.
The only question, how long until it take for the ship to completely slip under the surface? As the economy worsens, you will see increasing numbers of politicians, generals, and the 1% grab whatever they can for their "lifeboat". For the rest of us, it may be everyone for themselves.
Gather your family, move to the country, plant a garden, raise chickens, and other similar endgame preparations.
Try the website Zero Hedge, which is a prominent financial website sympathetic to the goals of Occupy Wall Street. Zero Hedge is roughly based on the film Fight Club. The author of the site takes the name Tyler Durden, which is a pseudonym, and the name of the Brad Pitt character in Fight Club. New York Magazine profiled Zero Hedge in Sept. 2009, see The Dow Zero Insurgency http://nymag.com/guides/money/2009/59457/
Valorie, you said I was rich. In your world that probably means I'm evil. Where did you get that information? You assumed it didn't you because I mentioned owning a number of houses. Since you are a nurse, what is that called, psychological projection?
ReplyDeleteNeil, very interesting. I've been on the Zero Hedge site a couple of times but found it to be very gloom and doom. However, as things have gotten progressively worse it seems more plausible. The list of quotes regarding European sovereigns debt and the Euro are certainly interesting. As stated in an earlier post, will Germany end up owning Europe or will they be dragged down along with it?
ReplyDeleteGeorge, here is what you wrote a few paragraphs back:
ReplyDelete"I’m not “unrealistically superior” to anyone. My after military service work history started with programmer trainee and ended at the CFO level in a multi-billion dollar corporation. I ran my own real estate business for about ten years after my big evil corporation experience."
Kat, are you trying to make a point?
ReplyDelete