Last edited by AdamT; 09-07-11 at 05:44 PM.
Basically you are loaning to operations that cannot survive on their own ... correct or incorrect? I don't get the loan term as "not" of interest. You are still loaning to a business that will sink without support.
That's how I see it ... if I lose my job ... I'm not getting an overnight loan or any loan to prop me up until my bottom line recovers. No bank is funding a revolving credit line for me to pay my operations.
No bank ... I don't get it ... trust me I don't ... loaning money to an operation that can only survive with its support. And you don't want to call it a loan. Buying up junk assets basically to back the loans. crazy, mad, ... supporting junk ... and what would have happened if they defaulted? Wasn't there already a TARP or blanket or throwcover for these $##% clowns.
And the FED loaning them money for their 30x and 35x poker games.
Loan me a few billion for a few nights ... I'm good for it!
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. PattonNew opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common. John Locke
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911