PuroFreak:

Laker, you really contradict yourself when you say "If you lend somebody money you have an obligation to ensure that the money was lent wisely, bank do this as part of Due Process," and use that as a way for government to keep businesses from pissing away money on bad investments, when it was the government telling banks the HAD to make bad investments and bad loans that caused so much of our economic downfall... So the government can tell banks NOT to make wise investments and give out bad loans and that is good regulation, but when it makes an investment has to do the exact opposite? How are both of those good things?

I have only heard you and Kuzi blaming the government for the banks and their loose lending policies.

Funny thing is up here where I know you think we are all stupid left wing liberals our "over regulated" system came thru just fine, and excellently compared to the US banks.

The arguement that the banks were FORCED to make bad investents is just silly. But that is just my opinion.

As for my "contradictory" quote... this is what I said in full, and I don't see anything you said changing my position on what I said. This is what I said
If you lend somebody money you have an obligation to ensure that the money was lent wisely, bank do this as part of Due Process. what is the difference here? The government had better ensure they get certain guidelines or regulations in place to ensure the money they gave as bailout money wasn't just pissed away like the original money. Otherwise they would have to answer to people like yourself who would be screaming blue murder about the imcompetance of giving away money so irresponsibly, and rightfully so too.
You are assuming that I agree with your assesment of my arguement, which I don't so I can't really answer your question regarding how the two things can both be good, sorry.

---