Bail Out Mess Who To Blame?

[Peter Hansen]

Yes there is plenty of blame to go around ........but listen to this U-Tube Video with an open mind ......and TELL ME .......WHO IS REALLY TO BLAME?
I think the ANSWER is OBVIOUS!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

[Lyehopper]

Yes there is plenty of blame to go around ........but listen to this U-Tube Video with an open mind ......and TELL ME .......WHO IS REALLY TO BLAME?
I think the ANSWER is OBVIOUS!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Thanks for posting the video Pete....

Some peoples, dey jus be sooooo stupid!

[asfd9]

The repubs are on CNN right now blaming the democracts. I guess some of there members were put off about being late to the party.

[Websman]

Thanks for posting the video Pete....

Some peoples, dey jus be sooooo stupid!


Lyehopper Lives! Jejejejejeeeee!

[New-born baby]

Thanks, Webs, for another great post.

[Peter Hansen]

Thanks for posting the video Pete....

Some peoples, dey jus be sooooo stupid!

Hey Lye .....after viewing the video ....I am sure You will conclude as many of the DEMS ......It's All Bush's fault LOL .....Hee Hawwwww!

[New-born baby]

MM,
Whaddathink?

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.

This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

Don't Miss
Bailout plan rejected
Financial rescue 101: the bill
Commentary: Financial crisis a disaster
In Depth: Commentaries
The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.

Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.

Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration's claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.

If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth.

The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients.

Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take. The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets.

So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.

The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

[Clarkstondude]

lobbyists were paid for from the bankers, they targeted the dems coz they are plain stupid rich when it comes to money. now that s#$t hit the fan the lobbyists are in far corners cause they caused the mess.

But not so fast, there is soo mush BS behind all this it isnt completely 1 parties doing. yes rep is good for the investor but think can you invest? I'm sure the FRE/FNM plays pulled off good and the WM truckload sale fended just as well. I know i have a new ID here but offer nothing... I see a big problem with your guys picture. It wont work.

fubared. you guys make your own ending while I am making good %. theres nothing mainstream that is going to work the next week, maybe a few bottom bankers at the risk of a draw.

I have been here for a LONG time and since the market dried up this place really changed. From stock picking fools that doubled to market preaching political crap. Sorry guys there is money to be made and you guys are not on it.

this was my biggest post in 10 years or 8 or 6 I dont know. All I know is the money is there, I went from multi to 9K, nice hold em and be stupid as sin... depending on government backed BS.

I am working a new idea that I always thought was c#ap but it works, i am a bottom tugging fool that lost mega K to the system. The very system that made me great took me out and I watched it happen "I wont sell a loss" "It wont go down more" etc etc... what a failure to
my family.

Remember I only started out small K 9K to 240K to 8K nice cycle.

my education in this post... none go bottom fishing which i never believed in. The asshat that called himself motherload... this dude is a bottom fisher, and he is good.

Like I said i worked my way down to 6K from multi, so a 3K investment spread across gave me 40% avg on all 3. His next guess is AXTI which since I cant day trade I opened a few more accounts... I will be back in the real world.

I hate playing with change.. yet without change nothing can happen, I dont care if it's a hundred bucks.

blah blah sorry guys... had this open since I picked up my son.

Jeff

[Karel]

[...]

Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.

Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.

[...]
Thanks, NBB, I think we need more commentary like that, and less finger pointing and YouTube. The reason that I snipped so much of the quote is not that I disagree with those parts, but because in my perception this portion is its weak point. And we can't expect a libertarian like Jeffrey Miron to make it stronger. So the question becomes: what kind of turmoil can we expect as a result of laissez faire? And if that turmoil is rather daunting (and not over "instantly"), would it be possible to diminish it, and at what cost?

And then to weigh the alternatives...

Regards,

Karel

[Karel]

With all the high feelings, it might not be a bad idea to have a look at What got killed (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/financial_rescue_101/index.htm?postversion=2008092915) (CNN).

There now is talk that the extra time might be used to formulate a better plan. What would be a better plan? As I see it, with the current proposal, the $700B is supposed to be a cap on state involvement, and protected by the underlying value (if any). The banks would not get the original value for the assets exchanged, but market value. The actual cost would be Underlying Value - $700B.

It is difficult to find info on the Republican "insurance proposal". I find no limit mentioned on (or estimates for) the amount the state might have to pay out. With tax cuts too. It is not clear to me that this is easier on the tax payer and less generous to the banks, indeed it may well be worse on both counts. And wouldn't a realistically priced insurance mean crippling insurance costs? Call in the actuaries!

An area of improvement could be to try to do something about the looming foreclosures, but what?

Regards,

Karel

[peanuts]

Do you know what the US Navy does when it becomes too cumbersome and expensive to operate ships in their fleet?

They use them for target practice and then sink them to turn them into reefs for tiny little ocean creatures to call home...

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~cookt/images/navy/1169_sinking.jpg

[Lyehopper]

And just think of how much value in scrap steel they waste, SAD!.... Just proves the government pisses away money without giving it a thought.... AND THEY'RE GONNA SAVE THE MARKETS?!!!!

I say FORGET the bailout, let the chips fall where they may. I'm hunkered down and ready for a depression..... If Wachovia sold for a measly $2 Billion, then I should be able to snag STLD (lock-stock-and-barrel) for about $750k in a ca$h deal in a couple of years.... jejejejejejejeeeeeeeee!

[skiracer]

And just think of how much value in scrap steel they waste, SAD!.... Just proves the government pisses away money without giving it a thought.... AND THEY'RE GONNA SAVE THE MARKETS?!!!!

I say FORGET the bailout, let the chips fall where they may. I'm hunkered down and ready for a depression..... If Wachovia sold for a measly $2 Billion, then I should be able to snag STLD (lock-stock-and-barrel) for about $750k in a ca$h deal in a couple of years.... jejejejejejejeeeeeeeee!


Lye,
the correct terminolgy would be "armed and dangerous" lots of people feel the same way throughout the country

[Websman]

Thanks, Webs, for another great post.

You're welcome NBB! :D:D:D

[Websman]

Lye,
the correct terminolgy would be "armed and dangerous" lots of people feel the same way throughout the country


Country boy can survive! Bring it on boys!!! I'm ready for ya!

YEEEEHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

[RL]

Who the heck Is Lyehopper:confused::confused::confused:

[New-born baby]

That $700B amounts to $290K for every person over 18 in the USA. Why not just give everyone 18 and up $290k each? If they want to monetize the debt, I think that they should monetize me instead of the stupids who leveraged far more than they could ever repay. Personally, I don't think I and my children should work all our lives to pay the taxes to pay for all those who joined "the stupid club." There are many people who owe more on their cars than they are worth. The national average is that for everyone owing money on a vehicle, they are upside down by 40%. In other words, they owe 40% more than their car is worth.

Harold Paulson, the Sec. of the Treasury, "earned" $500 MILLION in bonuses when he worked for Lehman.

[IIC]

That $700B amounts to $290K for every person over 18 in the USA. Why not just give everyone 18 and up $290k each? If they want to monetize the debt, I think that they should monetize me instead of the stupids who leveraged far more than they could ever repay. Personally, I don't think I and my children should work all our lives to pay the taxes to pay for all those who joined "the stupid club." There are many people who owe more on their cars than they are worth. The national average is that for everyone owing money on a vehicle, they are upside down by 40%. In other words, they owe 40% more than their car is worth.

Harold Paulson, the Sec. of the Treasury, "earned" $500 MILLION in bonuses when he worked for Lehman.

What kinda car does Hank drive anyway???

[Lyehopper]

Lye,
the correct terminolgy would be "armed and dangerous" lots of people feel the same way throughout the country

I'm "hunkered down" from a financial standpoint....

However it's true, EVERYONE who lives "up the hollow" is indeed "armed and dangerous".... depression or not.

[Karel]

That $700B amounts to $290K for every person over 18 in the USA. Why not just give everyone 18 and up $290k each? [...]
I don't understand this. AFAIK, the $700B are not "given", they buy assets with an estimated market value of $700B. (Hope they get the estimate right or even aim for a bonus, as they might have the banks by the short hairs.) The transaction is not meant (again, AFAIK) to reward financial stupidity, but to bring liquidity to the market.

Regards,

Karel

[Karel]

I don't understand this. AFAIK, the $700B are not "given", they buy assets with an estimated market value of $700B. (Hope they get the estimate right or even aim for a bonus, as they might have the banks by the short hairs.) The transaction is not meant (again, AFAIK) to reward financial stupidity, but to bring liquidity to the market.

Regards,

Karel
Some more knowledgeable commentary by Jim Jubak (MSN):

Are we buying a $700 billion 'maybe'? (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/are-we-buying-a-700-billion-dollar-maybe.aspx), and his earlier

Let's not rush to blow $700 billion (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/lets-not-rush-to-blow-700-billion-dollars.aspx)

Regards,

Karel

[Websman]

I'm "hunkered down" from a financial standpoint....

However it's true, EVERYONE who lives "up the hollow" is indeed "armed and dangerous".... depression or not.

I'm very good with guns...Had plenty of practice, when I lived in the Holler, back in Breathitt county Kentucky. We didn't have any tv, so I used to sit out on the front porch all day and shoot birds off the power line with a 22 rifle...until I clipped the line. After that, I aimed at the creek only.

Financially, I should be ok. I don't have a million dollars buried in mason jars like Lye, but my home is paid for and I work in a depression proof business, plus I drive a truck and own a chainsaw...Oh...And I have a dock that I can catch dinner off of. I should be ok.

[New-born baby]

I'm very good with guns...Had plenty of practice, when I lived in the Holler, back in Breathitt county Kentucky. We didn't have any tv, so I used to sit out on the front porch all day and shoot birds off the power line with a 22 rifle...until I clipped the line. After that, I aimed at the creek only.

Financially, I should be ok. I don't have a million dollars buried in mason jars like Lye, but my home is paid for and I work in a depression proof business, plus I drive a truck and own a chainsaw...Oh...And I have a dock that I can catch dinner off of. I should be ok.

Webs,
A Kentucky country boy can survive.

[New-born baby]

This is Harold Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury. I guess a $500 Million bonus doesn't even buy a smile these days. But why the red eyes?

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4941/hireshenrypaulsonvt7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/hireshenrypaulsonvt7.jpg/1/w428.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img407/hireshenrypaulsonvt7.jpg/1/)

[Peter Hansen]

Shah Gilani says the bail out will not work .....here are his thoughts, and time will tell if he is right!

http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/10/02/senate_bailout_bill/

[New-born baby]

Shah Gilani says the bail out will not work .....here are his thoughts, and time will tell if he is right!

http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/10/02/senate_bailout_bill/

Our politicians are bought by lobbyists who are employed by our enemies: China, the Muslim World, and Russia. They are selling us all out.

[peanuts]

Hey look, California is bankrupt! (http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/081003/100308_california_crisis.html)

[New-born baby]

Hey look, California is bankrupt! (http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/081003/100308_california_crisis.html)

Every Republican dies the same kind of death: the people vote themselves raises/welfare/subsidies/"the dole" until the treasury is bankrupt. Then follows the dictator.

I don't want a dictator!

[New-born baby]

Guess again who's to blame for
U.S. mortgage meltdown
Analysts point not to greed,
but to social activist politics
Posted: September 19, 2008
By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Stan J. Liebowitz

While many pundits are pointing to corporate greed and a lack of government regulation as the cause for the American mortgage and financial crisis, some analysts are saying it wasn't too little government intervention that cased the mortgage meltdown, but too much, in the form of activists compelling the government to pressure Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into unsound – though politically correct – lending practices.

"Home mortgages have been a political piñata for many decades," writes Stan J. Liebowitz , economics professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, in a chapter of his forthcoming book, Housing America: Building out of a Crisis.

Liebowitz puts forward an explanation that he admits is "not consistent with the nasty-subprime-lender hypothesis currently considered to be the cause of the mortgage meltdown."

In a nutshell, Liebowitz contends that the federal government over the last 20 years pushed the mortgage industry so hard to get minority homeownership up, that it undermined the country's financial foundation to achieve its goal.

"In an attempt to increase homeownership, particularly by minorities and the less affluent, an attack on underwriting standards was undertaken by virtually every branch of the government since the early 1990s," Liebowitz writes. "The decline in mortgage underwriting standards was universally praised as 'innovation' in mortgag e lending by regulators, academic specialists, (government-sponsored enterprises) and housing activists."

He continues, "Although a seemingly noble goal, the tool chosen to achieve this goal was one that endangered the entire mortgage enterprise."

"As homeownership rates increased there was self-congratulation all around," Liebowitz writes. "The community of regulators, academic specialists, and housing activists all reveled in the increase in homeownership."

An article in the Los Angeles Times from the late '90s praised the sudden surge in homeownership among minorities, calling it "one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era."

John Lott, a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, however, claimed in a Fox News article yesterday that the success came at a great price.

According to Lott, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston pr oduced a manual in the early '90s that warned mortgage lenders to no longer deny urban and lower-income minority applicants on such "outdated" criteria as credit history, down payment or employment income.

Furthermore, claims Lott, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged and praised lenders – like Countrywide and Bear Stearns – for adopting the slackened policies toward minority applicants.

"Given these lending practices mandated by the Fed and encouraged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," writes Lott, "the resulting financial problems for financial institutions such as Countrywide and Bear Stearns are not too surprising."

Liebowitz' contention that lenders were under pressure to loosen their standards for racial and political goals was confirmed years ago by the companies at the heart of today's crisis: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

A New York Times article from Sept. 1999 states that Fannie Mae had been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and that the corporation loosened its lending requirements to comply.

An ominous paragraph of the article reads, "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."

Liebowitz likewise pr edicted in a 1998 paper the risk of sacrificing sound financial policy for social activism.

"After the warm fuzzy glow of 'flexible underwriting standards' has worn off," Liebowitz wrote, "we may discover that they are nothing more than standards that led to bad loans. … It will be ironic and unfortunate if minority applicants wind up paying a very heavy price for a misguided policy based on a badly mangled idea."

And though some have speculated that lenders in the '90s dove into sub-prime mortgages in an effort to gouge new markets, the president and chief operating officer of Freddie Mac in 1999, David Glenn, confessed his company was pushed by a federal agenda.

"The mortgage industry intends to pursue minorities with greater intensity as federal regulators turn up the heat to increase home ownership," Glenn said in his remarks at the annual convention of the Mortgage Banker Association of America.

"The federal government in the meantime has increase d pressure on lenders to seek out minorities, as well as low-income groups and borrowers with poor credit histories," Glenn said. "Fannie Mae recently reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to commit half its business to low- and moderate-income borrowers. That means half the mortgages bought by Fannie Mae would be from those income brackets."

In that same year, Freddie Mac warned of the logical pitfalls of pursuing loans on the basis of skin color and not credit history.

The Washington Post reported that the company conducted a study in which it was found that far more black people have bad credit than white people, even when both have the same incomes. In fact, the study showed a higher percentage of African Americans with incomes of $65, 000 to $75,000 had bad credit than white Americans with incomes of below $25,000.

Such data demonstrated that when federal regulators demanded parity between racial groups in lending, the only way to achieve a quota would be to begin making intentionally bad lending decisions.

The study, however, came under brutal attack in the U.S. Congress and was ridiculed with charges of racism.

A few years later, when Greg Mankiw, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, voiced a warning about weakened underwriting standards, Congress rebuffed him as well.

The Wall Street Journal quoted Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., in 2003 as criticizing Greg Mankiw "because he is worried about the tiny little matter of safety and soundness rather than 'concern about housing.'"

Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, rejected a Bush ad ministration and Congressional Republican plan for regulating the mortgage industry in 2003, saying, "These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis." According to a New York Times article, Frank added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing!"

[Peter Hansen]

The Big Man does not use the "Kings English" Warning if some salty language bothers you ........PLEASE DON'T LISTEN!
For all othrs enjoy LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO_DtPt5FzA&feature=user

[peanuts]

Hey look, California is bankrupt! (http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/081003/100308_california_crisis.html)

Wow... now more than half of the United States is bankrupt (http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/105909/States-That-Can%27t-Pay-for-Themselves)

We're doomed. When everyone pulls their head out of the sand, there will be riots.

[New-born baby]

Wow... now more than half of the United States is bankrupt (http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/105909/States-That-Can%27t-Pay-for-Themselves)

We're doomed. When everyone pulls their head out of the sand, there will be riots.

I'll repeat myself again, though I've said it here many times. All Republics last about 200 years, and then die the same death: bankruptcy of the public treasury. What follows is a dictator. I think O is that man.

How to kill a great nation: more free entitlements for everyone!
Don't forget to bail out GM. Lutz, the VP, has two private jets, two private helicopters, and now the Chevy Volt looks to be priced at $40K!! While oil returns to $20! Kiss 'em goodbye; "they gone."

[New-born baby]

Wow... now more than half of the United States is bankrupt (http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/105909/States-That-Can%27t-Pay-for-Themselves)

We're doomed. When everyone pulls their head out of the sand, there will be riots.

No doubt about it.

[Peter Hansen]

The big man , and I might add in no uncertain terms, expresses his opinion of the whole buy out scam . Please .....Please ......Remember the Big Man is not a Harvard Graduate .....and he does use strong graphic laguage in the latter part of the film clip.....but I believe what he has to say .......IS THE TRUTH! Let the chips fall where they may!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKyRHz68hDg&feature=user

[stock_market_4_beginners]

Yes there is plenty of blame to go around ........but listen to this U-Tube Video with an open mind ......and TELL ME .......WHO IS REALLY TO BLAME?
I think the ANSWER is OBVIOUS!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

The markets are hampered and governments print money to apparently buy our way out of problems. In my view, this allows moral hazard to run rampant and means inflation will accelerate. The current policy response is riddled with inconsistency, the shape of it is unclear, the immediate consequences confusing. But the longer-term implications look clear to me. Inflation and stupidity are here to stay.

[Karel]

The markets are hampered and governments print money to apparently buy our way out of problems. In my view, this allows moral hazard to run rampant and means inflation will accelerate. The current policy response is riddled with inconsistency, the shape of it is unclear, the immediate consequences confusing. But the longer-term implications look clear to me. Inflation and stupidity are here to stay.
User banned for link spamming. BTW, the quote is a rather typical message for a link spammer: it could be copied in almost any discussion, anytime. Of course, not only link spammers produce such messages ;).

And a link spammer is someone who posts messages only with a view to show his signature (with link!), so that search engines, f.i. Google, rank their sites higher because of those links. We do not like that kind of thing. Go play somewhere else please.

Regards,

Karel

[Websman]

User banned for link spamming. BTW, the quote is a rather typical message for a link spammer: it could be copied in almost any discussion, anytime. Of course, not only link spammers produce such messages ;).

And a link spammer is someone who posts messages only with a view to show his signature (with link!), so that search engines, f.i. Google, rank their sites higher because of those links. We do not like that kind of thing. Go play somewhere else please.

Regards,

Karel

You rock Karel!

[New-born baby]

You rock Karel!

You gotta admit it: Karel is a bulldog! With a good nose, too!

[Peter Hansen]

You gotta admit it: Karel is a bulldog! With a good nose, too!

Nothing slips by Karel ......he must use a bed sheet for that nose of his .....JUST JOKING .....Really Karel is a good egg!