Comments on: IndyMac: Not Such ‘A Wonderful Life’

By: Charlie (Colorado)

Charlie (Colorado) — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:15:25 +0000

so find what you did not let to appear and publish it

It’s probably a little late for this, but kabud, so far as I know PJM doesn’t remove any comments. (I’ve had Chuck Pelto saying he’d been censored before as well; the difficulty here is that we’re smart enough to delete comments that complain about censorship too, if we had any interest in censoring you.)

Given the general literacy of your posts, I suspect operator error.

By: Baylink

Baylink — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:10:30 +0000

I personally think that if Schumer had a card up his sleeve, it was “make sure the public can *see the results* of 8 years of moronic Republican rule”.

I’m not worried about 1-800-RUN, as Tom Clancy once put it; I’m worried about http://www.RUN

Nice piece, Charlie.

By: kabud

kabud — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:37:36 +0000

Charlie (Colorado):

so find what you did not let to appear and publish it

By: Charlie (Colorado)

Charlie (Colorado) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:02:28 +0000

you censored my explanation

You might want to look that word up; it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

By: kabud

kabud — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:28:52 +0000

MattJ: agree

see, what is happening here should be viewed as a tendency of more governmental unneeded involvement in supposedly free markets in a bad way

regulations are needed but unfortunately they became an instrument of enriching of corrupted who team up with officials , get priority treatment on your expense

on top of fuel problem we face
-political instability of this elections also combined with
-crisis of 2 party system, when
-2 parties degraded into self serving socialist apparatus
-and war
-and threat of a very bad attack on the homeland

we are getting to the point of no return and Republic death

i think federal government MUST do what you proposed like YESTERDAY

and explain openly to the public WHY

By: MattJ

MattJ — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:14:58 +0000

It is wrong to conflate the debt represented by outstanding treasuries with intragovernmental debt, let alone with unfunded entitlement liabilities. Entitlement benefits can be reduced by Congress in ways that will reduce or erase that liability. In a similar way, the funding of entitlements can be changed in ways that effectively erase the intragovernmental debt. Neither of those changes would have the affect that defaulting on treasury debt would.

By: kabud

kabud — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:29:15 +0000

Joshua:
EXACTLY

and we must think of stepping out of 2 party political scheme we are played by:

we need A REAL LEADER and a REAL MOVEMENT

By: Joshua

Joshua — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:52:11 +0000

Kabud, if you are right we are too far gone now and our Republic will collapse under the perfect storm created by totalitarian regimes preparing for our financial and social destruction and their subsequent occupation.

I guess I’ve only got one option. Go buy more bullets right away.

By: kabud

kabud — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:48:42 +0000

Charlie (Colorado):

you censored my explanation, but dont have any doubt

PUBLIC FIGURED YOU OUT

YOU HAVE NO IDEA

TRY TO RUMOR YOURSELF INTO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THEN WRITING

no telenat, no understanding, no nothing:

a little engine that COULDNT

By: Charlie (Colorado)

Charlie (Colorado) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:47:00 +0000

Okay, kabud, evidence for what? It looks from that chart that your assumption holds, ie, the federal government gets about half of tax revenue, and states and localities get the other half. So, good, you have data. Now what’s the argument you’re trying to make here?

Oh, and which argument? This article says that a bank run happens when rumors of insolvency get around, and shows an example.