OHCHUTE

I read it while drafting a paper in college. It was years ago. Not sure the status of any investments they have now. It's not until the balance sheet term is defined by the type of instrument. Large financial institutions and wall street brokers bundled these loans and sold them to corporations as they were/ are good bets. I suspect Jb bought them to hedge against the debt they acquired in financing their aircraft fleet. Jb hedges on jet fuel. So someone owns them. The point still is: it doesn't matter who owns them, it's about the speculation surrounding a possible collapse when tuition costs no longer go up as quickly as they are going up now--the debt won't be as valuable. Which is why there is so much pressure to keep raising tuition costs. oh, i see. the evidence to your claim that it is on JBLU's financials are not actually on JBLU's filings. They are not on the only official record of JBLU"s financials. they only exist in a different time on a paper you wrote. Thank you for clearing that up. i should have checked your term paper and not that companies actual SEC filings. my mistake. I owe you an apology. you didnt just make that up as evidence by your term paper from whenever, with data from whatever. silly me for expecting it to actually be on verifiable, tangible financial statements that are mandated by law. You have bested me sir. It could be that as sensitive as anything to do with making money off of college kids and their parents as "College Debt Secuities" what was once on a balance sheet now has been conveniently hidden. Let's face, what better way to sell MORE College Debt Securities at the time they were introduced than to publish: so and so bought a ton of secuities so maybe you should too Mr. Corporation. I think you don't have a clue. Why do you think they want to bring illegals in the fold and give them all college educations. Goldman was at the White House yesterday talking about immigration. They want them money.

The same gov't that forces people to use these agencies. How about, like in equities, you mandate that they publish their financials on debt and let the consumer decide. by letting people rely on a rating agency rather than do their own due diligence, people get burned. The gov't should not force debt ratings on people. My point is not that the gov't should not hold anyone liable for fraud. they should. My point is that they should not mandate ratings to protect people. Let people decide by actually taking the time to understand their investment. mandate financial disclosures. if you cannot understand them, dont buy the instrument. And there is the problem. The banks want to sell as much of this as possible and so do the gov't's who are issuing debt. Would anyone take the time to read the financials on a municipal sewer bond, no. slap a AAA rating on it and you have a brand new sewer plant. Banks win, Gov't wins and your grandmother is left holding the bag. No one should be charged with fraud you say Mr. Weekender? Spoken like a true banker. You are really something. Here you talk about: "you mandate that they publish their financials on debt" per Weekender, when in another thread you claim you know what "investment in debt security" on a balance sheet is about. Seems disjointed. How in one thread you say you have knowledge yet in another thread you advocate you don't have knowledge and need a mandate to get the information you seek? You raise more questions than anwers you give. i clearly state they should be held accountable for fraud. reread my post. your clueless. your response besides being factually wrong about what i clearly stated, is nonsense. i cannot even begin to understand your point. you are confusing an equity and a fixed income security. i am not. if you do not even know the difference and which is responsible to publish what, then you should refrain from speaking. you, once again, show yourself the fool. i will repeat. the gov't should not mandate ratings but mandate financials. people should then decide for themselves and not rely on others opinions. Maybe if you START capitalizing the first words to your sentences you'd be better understood. Lets do an anaylsis of what you wrote: You (weedender) wrote: "My point is not that the gov't should not hold anyone liable for fraud. they should. My point is that they should not mandate rating to protect people. Let people decide by actually taking the time to understand their investment. mandate financial disclosures." Translations: Hold banks for fraud, but don't mandate the banks to be more transparent with disclosures; allow the fraud to continue. Buyer beware. Question: How can buyer beware if the seller of the investment witholds information and when there is no mandate for transparency? Solution: Buy nothing from broker dealer until financial disclosure mandates are in place. Thanks!

I read it while drafting a paper in college. It was years ago. Not sure the status of any investments they have now. It's not until the balance sheet term is defined by the type of instrument. Large financial institutions and wall street brokers bundled these loans and sold them to corporations as they were/ are good bets. I suspect Jb bought them to hedge against the debt they acquired in financing their aircraft fleet. Jb hedges on jet fuel. So someone owns them. The point still is: it doesn't matter who owns them, it's about the speculation surrounding a possible collapse when tuition costs no longer go up as quickly as they are going up now--the debt won't be as valuable. Which is why there is so much pressure to keep raising tuition costs.

The bitch from CA She has said it publicly more than once that she would do it if she could Many of us here are trying to make suse she cant You are having zero effect on any decision made by Congress (well, maybe the opposite effect of what you want because your arguments are so poorly thought out and your posts are so frantic). The probability of a gun ban in the USA is zero. You're getting all worked up over nothing. There WILL be some action, most likely over more rigorous background checks and restoring funding for research on gun violence. I'd like to see mandatory training and liability insurance too. Lets tax our gun hobbists. OK, parachuting is dangerous too. You could land on someones house killing all the kids. So you need P&C insurance and futher licensing on your chute, more continuing education, annually, to ensure the public is safe. So America is reduced to tennis, hiking, and bird watching, as all other activities are too expense and not worth dealing with all the regulations provided the government doesn't require you to use a special lens to watch birds that will cost a fortune. I'm seeing radio controlled gliders selling for $1,700 and more, plus there's now going to be more restrictions on that hobby as an RC could be a drone or, interfer with drones. People will have to have a license to buy balsa wood!

I agree: One's with data at hand refuses to define terms on the balance sheet and instruments held. Until that is done, the converation is at a standstill.

With criminals going to a stadium to see criminal football players what can you expect.

Weekender, if you know all the answers on a balance sheet then why are you advocating gaining a mandate forcing better balance sheet reporting including defining terms. Until you know what: "investment in debt securities" mean you don't have a clue what intruments are held and have no right to call any one a lair. You don't know yourself what it means. Here's proof of what you propose. Like we don't read your other posts in other threads.... including: banks shouldn't be charged with fraud, when they commit fraud. Unbelievable. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4438767;page=unread#unread Like I said: GO AWAY

The same gov't that forces people to use these agencies. How about, like in equities, you mandate that they publish their financials on debt and let the consumer decide. by letting people rely on a rating agency rather than do their own due diligence, people get burned. The gov't should not force debt ratings on people. My point is not that the gov't should not hold anyone liable for fraud. they should. My point is that they should not mandate ratings to protect people. Let people decide by actually taking the time to understand their investment. mandate financial disclosures. if you cannot understand them, dont buy the instrument. And there is the problem. The banks want to sell as much of this as possible and so do the gov't's who are issuing debt. Would anyone take the time to read the financials on a municipal sewer bond, no. slap a AAA rating on it and you have a brand new sewer plant. Banks win, Gov't wins and your grandmother is left holding the bag. No one should be charged with fraud you say Mr. Weekender? Spoken like a true banker. You are really something. Here you talk about: "you mandate that they publish their financials on debt" per Weekender, when in another thread you claim you know what "investment in debt security" on a balance sheet is about. Seems disjointed. How in one thread you say you have knowledge yet in another thread you advocate you don't have knowledge and need a mandate to get the information you seek? You raise more questions than anwers you give.

The AR and hi cap mags are the threat to the Feds in the event they start raiding neiborhoods looking for bad guys. And of course anyone with an AR is a bad guy as they COULD have intentions of using an AR....and are suspect. For god sakes they want finger prints and mug shots just to buy a pistol. Those acts are usually reserved for those arrested, not for the law abiding citizen. These motives by gov't are very very scary.

You need to call UBS and jetblue and ask about their investment in debt securities. There's so much faith with the banking industry states are considering issuing their own money. Bankster hiding out behind their reports and numbers. If it's not on your bank computer its not the truth.... Go away.

Collapse? What collapse. OH the money. The state of Virginia just today is proposing issuing its own currency. Other states want the same as there is no faith in the Federal Reserve. When the money goes, so goes society.

Obama is visiting MD today to urge lawmakers to do the following: 1 Assalt weapons ban (quade says no one is advocating this) 2 FBI finger print card for every gun bought 3 8 hour gun training course and qualification 4 $100 licensing fee for every gun bought renewed every 5 years, so if you have huge collection you are screwed. 5 Liability insurance for every gun bought. Again more money out of your pocket. Sure, you can have all guns you want, now just wait in line and pay your fees. There is currently a 30 day wait period in MD and the MD state police are asking dealers not to send in multiple collector gun purchases as it is creating problems for the state police. Buying estate collections or multiple gun purchases is legal in MD, but state police says they can't handle single purchases of multiple guns at the moment. SO HOW WILL THEY HANDLE licensing everyone, providing training/ qualifying, and background checks if they now can't even handle gun purchases. OH i know: should these measures pass, half of all the dealers will go out of business and most marylanders will stop buying guns due to fees. Hence, very little gun sales activity in MD Tax them to death to rid them of their rights. The anti gun doesn't have a clue what is coming around the corner.

What other words do you use that you don't mean to use? Do I need to keep a list handy? I meant fathers as our fathers and I'm not talking about God. You didn't read it Daddy, that is if you are truly a daddy and have kids, You disrespected all dads including your own by your inference. Your dad fought in war. You said he used an M1. That means he defended our rights. And you sit there claiming people shouldn't be allowed to KEEP a firearm that might have intrinsic meaning beyond KEEPING a firearm for only defense. KEEP an arm is the rule. If you disrespect your own dad, it's clear you have little regards for anyone else. Very telling. A narcissist I presume.

It not a loop hole. Some states don't require background checks on private sales. Who is going to do all these background checks when there are millions of private sales annually. They can't even do over the counter new gun sales now. In some states you're a month out from geting the gun you bought just waiting on ATF to do the background check. And consumers are pissed about that. You get gas right away, pills, gun powder, chain saws, knives, automobiles, bobcats, hatchet, and rope... with no background check or having to wait to receive your merchandise. OH forgot wood chipper and rat poison. That if a killer wants to kill he might not need a gun. I'm all far sheltering a violent person from weapons but how can you enforce that or police that as we've seen the bad guys give us little clues that they are going to go balistic. Locks on doors is our best hope and telling kids NFL football is not the way to a good future. Science and math are. Much better than making millions of law abiding citizens having to pay more and wait longer for the items they want to buy and can legally buy, at the moment.

I think you are confusing this thread with another. Quote I so glad you are reading closely.

Yes those are true and background checks are also required for other than private sales. He's proposing hiring millions of people to supervise sales of private guns and busting people for selling a gun to a felon. The only way to find out if he's a felon is to complete the background check otherwise you'd might end up a felon yourself if you sell to a felon. And of course since we have a criminal justice industry, the more felons the better for LEO job security. More laws, rules=more perps just what they want.

Also, Quade I used fathers as our fathers, not as my father. And since you thought my dad died in Viet Nam and they way you disrespected who you thought was my dad and our fathers with your demeaning daddy reference places you at the bottom of the slag pile. Its your kind this nation needs worried about and your out there proposing blowing up US citizens without due process.

M14 AR. They want to ban similar guns. And saying that is not being proposed is bullshit. What tin foil hat are you wearing. The ar and high cap mags are what people are talking about. Here you talk banning my gun then you say thats not what you propose. You can't reason with the anti gun. They're nuts.

Except, of course, we were torturing people to find out if they knew anything regards whether we knew they did or not. We didn't know. If we did know, there would be know need for torture, which, ironically, is also why torture is ineffective. You can't even know if the person your'e torturing knows AND is telling the truth until much, much later. There is a world of difference between rounding up people who happen to be in an area and torturing people who might not know anything and the targeted killing of somebody who admits they are a terrorist. Drones, now, are almost completely effective. It's about money, job and power. Why do think the asshole went to Yeman. He's couldn't find a job here. So he went there, mouthed off, got followers and donations which might be easy to do with the retoric. Without perhaps one intention whatsoever to do any harm, just mouthing off. On the otherside we have the military industrial complex who can't wait to destroy another drone missle to be replaced for millions of dollars. And were now building a drone base in Africa. What makes you think we have the right to blow the guy under these circumstances, especially when all wev'e seen here is FBI giving fake bombs to idiots who are convinced their actually going to be a terriorist and probably had no intention to be one until the FBI showed up. This is a slippery slope... Also, why does the anti gun propose blowing up US citizens without due process. Quade.

Nobody is proposing you be unarmed. NOBODY. Why do you insist on saying something that is absolutely NOT what is being proposed? But you are being specific in telling me what type of gun I must be armed with. What is the difference. If I think I want to keep an AR and you're trying to ban an AR then you are banning my right to keep THAT MAKE AND MODEL. And I don't like that and neither do 5 million AR owners. You do realize our fathers died carrying the AR fighting for your freedom that I should be able to keep an AR to remember him. Who are you. Do I tell you what parachute you need jump with. You do not have an argument.

The CIA tells the pres the suspect is a a bad guy. The pres tells joint chief he's a bad guy. The army guy tell the drone operators to pull the trigger. What if the CIA is lying. Tell me they don't tell a few fibs now and again. When these goons run out of terrorists which the numbers are pretty low, they'll start inventing terriorists.... it's called job security.

The risks of an unarmed public could be more than the deaths of hundreds, perhaps millions of kids and their parents. And history has show this to be true.

You missed my point which means you doot even understand the argument you are trying to make. Very little student loan debt is securitized into a debt instuments. Unlike the mortgage debt where a large amount was securitized. its been established you are clueless on this topic but now I'm doubting your reading comprehension. My point was not at all complicated. You made a point: you said debt instruments are not dollar to dollar. I don't think you have a clue how much college debt is turned into securities. According to jet blues balance sheet they own a half billion in college debt securities and they are only one firm. When you profess to know a lot about money, you never support what you say with facts. You generalize. Even to the point that college tuition debt is not a problem. If it's not a problem then tell us why: for readers edification.

Have you read anything I've ever posted that said anything other than that? Same question. which is sad because the bozos that want to take your rights away think about them constantly...almost to the exclusion of everything else. Reasoning is the first thing to go for them. You can't reason with the anti gun. It's talking to a cocaine addict. They don't get it. They are out of it. They focus on the wrong thing. It not the gun. ITS THE RIGHT TO KEEP A GUN, and bare arms.

Unfucking believable. You've outdone yourself. *shaking head* And the anti gun really thinks we use guns to defend our home. We use locks and security systems. We have dogs. We have neighborhood watch and we have katana swords as I much prefer to behead an intruder wiith fine steel than use a stupid AR on a guy. But the anti gun want the cops to show up with their guns as they are so inept to defending themselves and their property they let the front door wide open. No wonder THEIR neighborhood is a wreck.