Moral failures led to current financial crisis - Greenwich Time

A precursor to the financial Armageddon that has drained the wealth of so many was the moral bankruptcy that we declared along the way. Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Jane D

Cold Spring Harbor, NY

#1 Dec 19, 2008
Bravo!
Ronnie Reagan

Huntington, NY

#2 Dec 19, 2008
One of the best political analysts in the world, Charles Krauthammer, gave a great idea on what to do with the Wall Street crooks:

Hang the corrupt tycoons live on TV and use the advertising dollars generated to pay back the public.

These criminals have shattered millions of lives and possibly our entire free market system.

I know it won't happen but putting the Fear of God into them might be the only way restore some public accountability to these crooks.
Joe

New Milford, CT

#3 Dec 20, 2008
LOL

Reaganomics and Clintonomics have come home to
roost.

And we've become a nation which enables and appeases war mongers and Wall St speculators.....

Cheers.

Washington CT USA (5th CD)
Karen

Huntington, NY

#4 Dec 20, 2008
Joe wrote:
LOL
Reaganomics and Clintonomics have come home to
roost.
And we've become a nation which enables and appeases war mongers and Wall St speculators.....
Cheers.
Washington CT USA (5th CD)
How does this nation appease war mongers? We just gave the finger to the troops and the okay to Al Queda, Russia, and Iran by electing Obummer.

Since: Dec 08

Houston, TX

#5 Dec 20, 2008
Karen wrote:
<quoted text>
How does this nation appease war mongers? We just gave the finger to the troops and the okay to Al Queda, Russia, and Iran by electing Obummer.
Given the lack of morality displayed by too many surrounding "Obummer", I'd have to agree with you, Karen. When the majority of the nation votes for a man of questionable morals and in so doing casts aside a man of long-proven morality, something is deeply wrong with the mind-set of the electorate. I would also remember that every great civilization in history has fallen, not to invaders from without, but to moral decay from within. Sad to see it happening here.
Billy

Huntington, NY

#6 Dec 20, 2008
rayk469 wrote:
<quoted text>
Given the lack of morality displayed by too many surrounding "Obummer", I'd have to agree with you, Karen. When the majority of the nation votes for a man of questionable morals and in so doing casts aside a man of long-proven morality, something is deeply wrong with the mind-set of the electorate. I would also remember that every great civilization in history has fallen, not to invaders from without, but to moral decay from within. Sad to see it happening here.
Not just sad. It's tragic. There is no other country that can fill the benevolent role the USA plays in the world. More Americans need to recognize that and be proud for who we are.
Warren

Huntington, NY

#7 Dec 21, 2008
Billy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not just sad. It's tragic. There is no other country that can fill the benevolent role the USA plays in the world. More Americans need to recognize that and be proud for who we are.
It's true. Many Americans hate their own flag and countrymen these days, partially because of sloppy left-wing media channels like MSNBC, which only give you half the story.
former res

Norristown, PA

#8 Dec 21, 2008
Warren wrote:
<quoted text>
It's true. Many Americans hate their own flag and countrymen these days, partially because of sloppy left-wing media channels like MSNBC, which only give you half the story.
Now who's smoking something? How can you mention MSNBC without also mentioning FOX? They are the press outlet for GOP talking points.
Warren

Huntington, NY

#9 Dec 21, 2008
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Now who's smoking something? How can you mention MSNBC without also mentioning FOX? They are the press outlet for GOP talking points.
Fox News always shows the liberal counterpoint. Ever night, every show, and almost every segment. MSNBC rarely, if ever, does. They allow there left-wing lunacy to run unchecked until it becomes a bash America free-for-all.
former res

Norristown, PA

#10 Dec 21, 2008
Warren wrote:
<quoted text>
Fox News always shows the liberal counterpoint. Ever night, every show, and almost every segment. MSNBC rarely, if ever, does. They allow there left-wing lunacy to run unchecked until it becomes a bash America free-for-all.
Ha - that's funny. Regulars on MSNBC include Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson (and others). MSNBC bashes those who seek to hurt America. As they should. It's patriotic and just. And thanks for watching.
Warren

Huntington, NY

#11 Dec 21, 2008
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha - that's funny. Regulars on MSNBC include Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson (and others). MSNBC bashes those who seek to hurt America. As they should. It's patriotic and just. And thanks for watching.
LOL. None of those are mainstream Republicans.

MSNBC bashes America every chance they get. Like when Olbermann laughed when MoveOn.org referred to General Patreus as General "BetrayUs," or when he agreed with Harry Reid's (D) statement that America had lost the war.

Sometimes I wonder if they cheer at MSNBC every time an IED goes off. Good thing few are watching.
former res

Norristown, PA

#12 Dec 21, 2008
Warren wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. None of those are mainstream Republicans.
MSNBC bashes America every chance they get. Like when Olbermann laughed when MoveOn.org referred to General Patreus as General "BetrayUs," or when he agreed with Harry Reid's (D) statement that America had lost the war.
Sometimes I wonder if they cheer at MSNBC every time an IED goes off. Good thing few are watching.
Who is mainstream GOP? Not Bush. He's a spender. They don't want to claim him.

Are you saying the we have won this war? Ha. This war will be viewed similarly to Vietnam - a big mistake. There is no clear victory in sight. History will record it.

Re-check you important advertising demo (25-54?)- MSNBC (esp Olbermann and Maddow) are doing quite well. O'Reilly draws a lot of old people that the ad guys don't care about.
Tony E Neuman

New Britain, CT

#13 Dec 21, 2008
Does anyone really know why we went into Iraq? perhaps each of the following had a different reason based on their personalities and goals:

Colin Powell: WMD, he thought
Donald Rumsfeld: Nation Building
Dick Cheney: OIL/Halliburton
George W:?
Karen

Wayne, NJ

#14 Dec 22, 2008
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is mainstream GOP? Not Bush. He's a spender. They don't want to claim him.
Are you saying the we have won this war? Ha. This war will be viewed similarly to Vietnam - a big mistake. There is no clear victory in sight. History will record it.
Re-check you important advertising demo (25-54?)- MSNBC (esp Olbermann and Maddow) are doing quite well. O'Reilly draws a lot of old people that the ad guys don't care about.
LOL. Anyone who compares Iraq to Vietnam is anti-American does the 55,000+ soldiers who died there a disservice.

Only 4,500 have died in Iraq and the war has essentially been won.

Bush's legacy will be the blueprint for peace and Democracy he built in the Middle East.

Too bad you country club liberals will never give him credit for it.
Karen

Wayne, NJ

#15 Dec 22, 2008
Tony E Neuman wrote:
Does anyone really know why we went into Iraq? perhaps each of the following had a different reason based on their personalities and goals:
Colin Powell: WMD, he thought
Donald Rumsfeld: Nation Building
Dick Cheney: OIL/Halliburton
George W:?
Terrorism is the biggest problem in the world and it is rampant in the Middle East.

We should have gone in the 1970s or 1980s before it ballooned.

Since: Dec 08

Houston, TX

#16 Dec 22, 2008
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is mainstream GOP? Not Bush. He's a spender. They don't want to claim him.
Are you saying the we have won this war? Ha. This war will be viewed similarly to Vietnam - a big mistake. There is no clear victory in sight. History will record it.
Re-check you important advertising demo (25-54?)- MSNBC (esp Olbermann and Maddow) are doing quite well. O'Reilly draws a lot of old people that the ad guys don't care about.
The sitting president is the head of his political party, and therefore as mainstream as it gets. Study American history.

Short of total genocide, it is impossible to win a war in the Mid-East. Those people like killing each other. Short term goals are the only wins available to outsiders. We've done about as well as possible in that arena. Comparing to Viet Nam is assinine. I lived that one. Study world history.

Pray tell, what do advertising demographics have to do with honest news reporting? Is that what we've come to in this country? May God help us all. Old people; you mean those of us who still know the definition of ethics? Study the Bible.

Since: Dec 08

Houston, TX

#17 Dec 22, 2008
Tony E Neuman wrote:
Does anyone really know why we went into Iraq? perhaps each of the following had a different reason based on their personalities and goals:
Colin Powell: WMD, he thought
Donald Rumsfeld: Nation Building
Dick Cheney: OIL/Halliburton
George W:?
I would add that the president is privy to information that the general public will never know about. It is a high-pressure job that requires quick decisions, and sometimes those decisions turn out to be less than the best. On the other hand, those same decisions are absolutely required to keep the nation going. Without knowing what the president was looking at, it is not possible to assess to the fullest extent how good or bad his decision may have been. It is said that you should not judge another man until you have walked in his shoes. Wisdom.
Fuzzy But

Jacksonville, FL

#18 Dec 22, 2008
Bush has squandered America’s resources. Money, Men and good faith.
1st off Bush spent $9b a month in the Middle East for a while now.
During said time corporate profits Ballooned for 500%(Clinton) to a blended 1,100%(Bush) annually.
During Bush’s reign he has driven down the middle classes earning power 3%(ish) annually.
Also not to be forgotten, Bush did NOT at anytime replace any of the debt he ran up.
As for the world economy, it goes well beyond Bush I will agree. But in the same breath I will mention the GOP with control of the white house for 8 years, control of the senate for 6 of the 8 years as well as congress would lead a logical person to the conclusion that this happened on Bush’s watch. If he were a Marine he would have been court-martialed for treason and shot the same day.
As for the President elect.. and his desire to spend $9b a month, here… at home…. In the United States of America… I think it could have a positive effect on the economy here in the US. Spending $9b a month off shore hasn’t done a damn thing for us except Bankrupt us. Of course that is a logical conclusion based on facts. How I feel about things is less important when actually take the time to think about the facts.
Tony E Neuman

United States

#19 Dec 22, 2008
rayk469 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would add that the president is privy to information that the general public will never know about. It is a high-pressure job that requires quick decisions, and sometimes those decisions turn out to be less than the best. On the other hand, those same decisions are absolutely required to keep the nation going. Without knowing what the president was looking at, it is not possible to assess to the fullest extent how good or bad his decision may have been. It is said that you should not judge another man until you have walked in his shoes. Wisdom.
Why shouldn't the public know what went into his decision? This is not a dictatorship. I am not judging his decision because I don't know what went into making it. So I am not saying we should or should not have gone into Iraq. I think Saddam would have been a big problem down the road so that alone may have been a good reason. It's the lies and secrecy that goes on at the high levels that isn't good for the people. Also, I don't think invading a country should be a quick decision. They made a quick decision to infiltrate Afghanistan before the CIA was ready, completely ignoring the judgment and evaluation of the men who ended up there.

Since: Dec 08

Houston, TX

#20 Dec 22, 2008
Tony E Neuman wrote:
<quoted text>
Why shouldn't the public know what went into his decision? This is not a dictatorship. I am not judging his decision because I don't know what went into making it. So I am not saying we should or should not have gone into Iraq. I think Saddam would have been a big problem down the road so that alone may have been a good reason. It's the lies and secrecy that goes on at the high levels that isn't good for the people. Also, I don't think invading a country should be a quick decision. They made a quick decision to infiltrate Afghanistan before the CIA was ready, completely ignoring the judgment and evaluation of the men who ended up there.
Some of what the president reviews each morning concerns reports by human intelligence resources. Call them agents, informers, spies, whatever, it would cost their lives if the information they relay was made public. This is not to mention that their deaths would create blind spots where we might need them the most. A primary, publicly known fact that most have forgotten is that we thought Saddam had the weapons because we had given them to him at a time when we supported the man. It was reasonable to assume he still had some of those. My personal opinion is that we should not have attacked Iraq because that's not what America does, ideologically. Iraq, by the way, was not a quick decision at all. That one took months and was a decision left over from the Clinton group who should have made it. But then, IMO, there are lots of things that Slick Willie should have done differently. I'm always amused by the folks who lay this mortgage meltdown at Bush's door, when it was ol' Slick who started the ball rolling in 1995 with modifications to the CRA. America has a terribly short memory. The last part of the equation is the fact that we're all human, and that means mistakes. A wise man told me that if I'd show him a man who made no mistakes, he'd show me a man who never did anything.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lehman Brothers Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
De Blasio under fire amid new threat from Islam... Sep '14 Obama Bad 10
Bank bailout plans loosen credit markets a bit;... (Sep '08) Sep '14 hubertfields00 8
American banks: From Whoo hoo to boo hoo (Sep '08) Mar '14 Ameline 12
Top Firm Says Salary & Bonus Pot Will Fall By A... (Sep '08) Mar '14 Jorry 2
Hank Paulson Defends Lehman Rout, Gives Bush Pr... (Feb '10) Feb '14 swedenforever 18
Obama: Budget tightening could widen income gap (Sep '13) Jan '14 TruthURGENT 32
One dark financial day in our nation (Sep '08) Dec '13 punK 138
More from around the web