This is a disingenuous straw man. Few people are saying we “never” allow them to resume control or that we make them into nonprofits.

You’re normally a reasonable guy, and I think a lot of what you say IS true, but I can’t help wondering if you are having some kind of emotional reaction to this. What you said above is a complete misrepresentation of people who disagree with you, and beneath you and the importance of this argument.

Absoluterly. Let’s do it.

Done. I’ll put away my thesaurus and dictionary. Really? Non-sequitor? I thought I was pretty logical :-) Reality sucks, man. I read a lot of stuff by some pretty smart people–I don’t think I said anything that was my idea, only others’ that I agree with.

I looked at all your comments and thought you had been lashing out at a variety of people and was not encouraging the sharing of thoughts but simply taking pot shots with not much for ammo. So I took it upon myself to engage you as you had I.

I initially tried bring things back around to the bonuses, but was derided for doing so.

You gave someone a hard time because no one can say what would have happened had TARP not happened. Factually, no one really knows, but the implication seemed to be that bad stuff wouldn’t have happened.

Hey, I just want to contribute without someone flaming me. I want to add to the thoughts being shared. I usually do with no problems…

I really think we can all spend a lot of time being angry about these things, and there is a lot of anger other than mine in these threads. I just think some thought needs to be placed out there that a lot that angers us is not illegal. It might be despicable, but not against the laws of the land. If we are to affect change, anger has to be turned into action; be that finding politicians that will change things, or how we act.

There are some really good posters on this blog, some have been leaving comments for years. If you read my comments and they don’t make sense, let me know and either I can try to explain them better, or you can correct an ill-conceived idea, but let’s not lash out.

I like Hussman too. Thanks for the link earlier in the day.

No mas. Guten Nacht

Dude.

I was annoyed by your non-sequitor comments, and I said so, but it’s nothing personal. Really. It isn’t my intention to upset anyone on a personal level. And I’m not happy that you’re so upset. Now, you’re throwing a lot of adjectives and invective my way, but I honestly don’t know where it’s coming from (I don’t watch Glenn Beck. I am not a conservative, etc). I’ll maintain my arguments are reasonable, but obviously we’re talking at cross purposes here. I’m sure you’ve got better things to do than get angry about this stuff, so let’s just leave it at that.

You’ve addressed most of what I commented on already? I think not. Maybe others have tried but, your a nutter whose comments mainly cut at other’s attempts at contributing. I see nothing from your comments on this thread but negatively charged rhetoric that is delusional at best. Credit would have been fine?! Other sources were stepping in?! Really? I don’t think so. You have no clear idea how the markets work mechanically, or you wouldn’t say some of the things you do. It seems you have the perception that markets can exist without infrastructure, like it is some mystical fairyland. I guess that doesn’t surprise me.

All I’ve done is point out reality. Deal with it. Life is unfair. Goldman Sachs works well to get what it wants within the confines of the law, and when it wants a law changed, it does what every company in this country does and tries to get it changed. It is simply more successful because they network better than any entity out there. And it is terribly unfair to you, to me, and to everyone else, but it isn’t illegal. And it goes on whether Republicans or Democrats are in power, so it isn’t a party related issue.

You want it to be more fair for you, do something about it. Dylan and Glenn aren’t going to do it for you. As great as their shows might be, they are only on the air because they sell ads. Ask Glenn to run for office if he wants to make a real difference. I doubt he would because it would be too much of a pay cut and it is easier to be a critic than to lead. The problem is that there isn’t a soul out there who can be elected that won’t be corrupt after their first stint in D.C. Doesn’t matter which side of the aisle you stand on, red or blue, they all come away sell outs.

My biggest mistake was assuming I was exchanging thoughts with a person not capable of doing anything but flame people. Clawback, you are simply way to hostile to be reasonable. Go put your tin foil hat on and try to communicate with Tom Cruise about the aliens, because you are about that far out there when it comes to anything coherent or sane.

Given your track record so far (Glenn Beck, Tea Bagger…) maybe you should just stop supposing altogether. Like supposing that because Goldman converted to a BHC it’s actually being regulated as a BHC (LOL). Or supposing that yet another meltdown metaphor (the internets) in any way amounts to a coherent narrative of what might have happened. Never mind the many, many alternatives between TARP on the one hand, and doing nothing on the other. Heck, maybe you just don’t read very well, because almost everything you wrote at 10:06 has been addressed by myself and others.

The outrage on the main street is real and justified. Most of these comments make amply clear this status quo is not working…….