Wait, you're against the government suing mortgage companies for engaging in fraudulent behavior that almost destroyed our economy? Are you trying to say that the charges are bogus? If so, for what reason?
I'm sure that has nothing at all to do with the fact that the federal government just sued BAC and a bunch of other banks for hundreds of billions based upon "fraud" in the go-go mortgage days. Only Uncle Sam can look to shake down industries for billions (see the tobacco settlements for another prime example) and then complain how those companies aren't hiring extra people to bring down unemployment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/02/banks-sued-subprime-mortgage-deals_n_947349.html
Or it could be related to the state AGs suing the banks for the robo-signing scandal that was improperly foreclosing on homeowners.I'm sure that has nothing at all to do with the fact that the federal government just sued BAC and a bunch of other banks for hundreds of billions based upon "fraud" in the go-go mortgage days. Only Uncle Sam can look to shake down industries for billions (see the tobacco settlements for another prime example) and then complain how those companies aren't hiring extra people to bring down unemployment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/02/banks-sued-subprime-mortgage-deals_n_947349.html
Wait, you're against the government suing mortgage companies for engaging in fraudulent behavior that almost destroyed our economy? Are you trying to say that the charges are bogus? If so, for what reason?
I'm not against the government suing companies, but I think it's either extremely naive or hypocritical (or both) to expect those same companies are going to hire tons of people after paying out billions in lawsuits. As for the validity of the charges, I can readily believe both that the banks engaged in some fraud, as well as Freddie and Fannie being sophisticated investors whose losses are due far more to bad investment choices than the supposed fraud.
we need to give them more tax cuts
frankly there's far too many branches for the same few banks. bank branches are as common as gas stations. the only thing there seems to be more of is cell phone stores.
Branches or ATM's? One of the only real advantages they have in consumer markets is that they are everywhere if you need cash.
Do not dare call me a liar if you are incapable of doing a basic internet search upon "Bobo" in my given terms of a tribe in Berkina Faso or "Bobo the gorilla." You did not prove me wrong, nor certainly a liar, but you did demonstrate plenty about yourself. What I presented exist and are easily verified with any Google search.None of the eight common Bobo-related searches Google suggests have anything to do with racism, or chimps, or slavery. And as proof, you offer only a link to yourself claiming the same racism.
Methinks thou lies.
Bobo (1951–1968) was a western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) who was a prominent feature of Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, Washington, USA, from 1953 until his death. As a publicly accessible gorilla in the wake of King Kong, Bobo was one of Seattle's most prominent attractions before the construction of the Space Needle and the introduction of professional sports to the city.[1][2] After his death, Bobo's skin was stuffed and placed on display at Seattle's Museum of History and Industry.[3] The remainder of his body was turned over to the University of Washington's Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture for research purposes;
I still despise you, but I despise you slightly less for knowing Pee Wees Big Adventure.
a777pilot said:I find it real funny that Liberals take offense at Bobo, the Post Turtle, depicted as a monkey. They, the Liberals, all say we descended from monkeys anyway. So what's the big deal?
Ownership society pockets uncle Warren's $5bil check and turns around and bends over 30K workers for an extra $5bil per year.
How did I do?
I'm sure that has nothing at all to do with the fact that the federal government just sued BAC and a bunch of other banks for hundreds of billions based upon "fraud" in the go-go mortgage days. Only Uncle Sam can look to shake down industries for billions (see the tobacco settlements for another prime example) and then complain how those companies aren't hiring extra people to bring down unemployment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/02/banks-sued-subprime-mortgage-deals_n_947349.html
I'm not against the government suing companies, but I think it's either extremely naive or hypocritical (or both) to expect those same companies are going to hire tons of people after paying out billions in lawsuits.
As for the validity of the charges, I can readily believe both that the banks engaged in some fraud, as well as Freddie and Fannie being sophisticated investors whose losses are due far more to bad investment choices than the supposed fraud.
In BOFA's case though we aren't talking about hiring, we're talking about layoffs to the tune of 30,000 people after they had one of their worst years in a long time (2010). In fact, 2010 was so bad that BOFA only made about $12 billion dollars last year and only generated $82 billion net in cash from operations.
Ownership society pockets uncle Warren's $5bil check and turns around and bends over 30K workers for an extra $5bil per year.
How did I do?
Man that is horrible. And they expect to eat on that income?
You realize that it's a publicly traded company right? It's not the like there's a greedy old Mr. BOA who pockets that money.
Wait, you're against the government suing mortgage companies for engaging in fraudulent behavior that almost destroyed our economy? Are you trying to say that the charges are bogus? If so, for what reason?