For Dogman

On Oct 22, 8:07*pm, Elmo wrote:
On 20/10/2011 8:20 PM, wrote:







Wall St. got bailed out and gave themselves bonuse with public money..

The only problem with that is that the money lent to Wall Street
has been almost all paid back. *So, those bonuses didn't come
out of the taxpayer's pockets. *Will you ever learn? *Let me help
you out. *For a good example of public money that was indeed
a handout never to be paid back and that added to the
federal debt you need look at the Obama
stimulus of $830bil. *Or the new one he's proposing for $500bil.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news...s_fits_in/inde
x.htm
The $8 trillion bailout
Are you sure you want to go there?

Yes, I want to go there and it's clear you've never been.
Just like all the rest of your one line crap, it's just that, crap.
* It's now the final months of 2011, not
2009 when that CNN article was writeen.
The money the govt lent to Wall Street has been almost all
paid back:

The banks have paid it ALL back:

Bank of America $45bil lent, all repaid
Citigroup *$45bil lent, all repaid
JP Morgan Chase $25bil lent, all repaid
Wells Fargo, $25bil lent, all repaid
Goldman Sachs $10bil, all repaid
Morgan Stanley, $10bil, all repaid

There is a long list of other banks with smaller
amounts, all repaid as well. *The Treasury
has made a profit of 10% on the above
loans. *You do understand the difference
between a loan and a handout, don't you?
So, clearly all the salaries and
bonuses at those firms did not come from
the taxpayers pockets as you claim.

Then we have AIG which was lent $68bil,
$17bil of that has been returned so far, with
all indications that it will all be returned.

In short, the last estimate I've seen for ALL
of TARP, is that of the $700bil initial amount,
only about $70bil is still considered at risk.
And when all the investments are sold off,
eg GM stock, there is a reasonable chance
that the govt will have a net profit.

Yet, you one line libs, long on emotion, short
of any facts, continue to harp on about it as
if it were in fact an actual handout to all of
Wall Street. *As I said, for examples of that,
you need look no further than Obama's
$830mil stimulus one, not a dime of which
was ever intended to be paid back. *Or his
new proposed $500bil one, which is more pure
spending.

Do you think any of it worked - long term?

http://tinyurl.com/6d2pbh5- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obviously it did. The banks are profitable and have
paid back the loans. GM and Chrysler are doing
well. By what criteria could it be considered to
not have worked?

On 24/10/2011 12:08 AM, wrote:
On Oct 22, 8:07 pm, wrote:
On 20/10/2011 8:20 PM, wrote:







Wall St. got bailed out and gave themselves bonuse with public money.

The only problem with that is that the money lent to Wall Street
has been almost all paid back. So, those bonuses didn't come
out of the taxpayer's pockets. Will you ever learn? Let me help
you out. For a good example of public money that was indeed
a handout never to be paid back and that added to the
federal debt you need look at the Obama
stimulus of $830bil. Or the new one he's proposing for $500bil.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news...s_fits_in/inde
x.htm
The $8 trillion bailout
Are you sure you want to go there?

Yes, I want to go there and it's clear you've never been.
Just like all the rest of your one line crap, it's just that, crap.
It's now the final months of 2011, not
2009 when that CNN article was writeen.
The money the govt lent to Wall Street has been almost all
paid back:

The banks have paid it ALL back:

Bank of America $45bil lent, all repaid
Citigroup $45bil lent, all repaid
JP Morgan Chase $25bil lent, all repaid
Wells Fargo, $25bil lent, all repaid
Goldman Sachs $10bil, all repaid
Morgan Stanley, $10bil, all repaid

There is a long list of other banks with smaller
amounts, all repaid as well. The Treasury
has made a profit of 10% on the above
loans. You do understand the difference
between a loan and a handout, don't you?
So, clearly all the salaries and
bonuses at those firms did not come from
the taxpayers pockets as you claim.

Then we have AIG which was lent $68bil,
$17bil of that has been returned so far, with
all indications that it will all be returned.

In short, the last estimate I've seen for ALL
of TARP, is that of the $700bil initial amount,
only about $70bil is still considered at risk.
And when all the investments are sold off,
eg GM stock, there is a reasonable chance
that the govt will have a net profit.

Yet, you one line libs, long on emotion, short
of any facts, continue to harp on about it as
if it were in fact an actual handout to all of
Wall Street. As I said, for examples of that,
you need look no further than Obama's
$830mil stimulus one, not a dime of which
was ever intended to be paid back. Or his
new proposed $500bil one, which is more pure
spending.

Do you think any of it worked - long term?

http://tinyurl.com/6d2pbh5- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obviously it did. The banks are profitable and have
paid back the loans. GM and Chrysler are doing
well. By what criteria could it be considered to
not have worked?

The fact that America is circling the drain and as in that link I gave,
apparently about to be downgraded even further. How is that a stimulus
success? It is an extension of life support, not a resuscitation.

On Oct 23, 11:19*am, Elmo wrote:
On 24/10/2011 12:08 AM, wrote:





On Oct 22, 8:07 pm, *wrote:
On 20/10/2011 8:20 PM, wrote:

Wall St. got bailed out and gave themselves bonuse with public money.

The only problem with that is that the money lent to Wall Street
has been almost all paid back. *So, those bonuses didn't come
out of the taxpayer's pockets. *Will you ever learn? *Let me help
you out. *For a good example of public money that was indeed
a handout never to be paid back and that added to the
federal debt you need look at the Obama
stimulus of $830bil. *Or the new one he's proposing for $500bil.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news...s_fits_in/inde
x.htm
The $8 trillion bailout
Are you sure you want to go there?

Yes, I want to go there and it's clear you've never been.
Just like all the rest of your one line crap, it's just that, crap.
* *It's now the final months of 2011, not
2009 when that CNN article was writeen.
The money the govt lent to Wall Street has been almost all
paid back:

The banks have paid it ALL back:

Bank of America $45bil lent, all repaid
Citigroup *$45bil lent, all repaid
JP Morgan Chase $25bil lent, all repaid
Wells Fargo, $25bil lent, all repaid
Goldman Sachs $10bil, all repaid
Morgan Stanley, $10bil, all repaid

There is a long list of other banks with smaller
amounts, all repaid as well. *The Treasury
has made a profit of 10% on the above
loans. *You do understand the difference
between a loan and a handout, don't you?
So, clearly all the salaries and
bonuses at those firms did not come from
the taxpayers pockets as you claim.

Then we have AIG which was lent $68bil,
$17bil of that has been returned so far, with
all indications that it will all be returned.

In short, the last estimate I've seen for ALL
of TARP, is that of the $700bil initial amount,
only about $70bil is still considered at risk.
And when all the investments are sold off,
eg GM stock, there is a reasonable chance
that the govt will have a net profit.

Yet, you one line libs, long on emotion, short
of any facts, continue to harp on about it as
if it were in fact an actual handout to all of
Wall Street. *As I said, for examples of that,
you need look no further than Obama's
$830mil stimulus one, not a dime of which
was ever intended to be paid back. *Or his
new proposed $500bil one, which is more pure
spending.

Do you think any of it worked - long term?

http://tinyurl.com/6d2pbh5-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obviously it did. *The banks are profitable and have
paid back the loans. *GM and Chrysler are doing
well. *By what criteria could it be considered to
not have worked?

The fact that America is circling the drain and as in that link I gave,
apparently about to be downgraded even further. How is that a stimulus
success? It is an extension of life support, not a resuscitation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The TARP program was never designed nor intended to be a
stimulus program. There was other legislation and even more
money, never to be paid back, that was devoted to stimulus
TARP was designed to prevent a cascading
effect where the failure of a few big institutions lead to the
failure of more institutions. At that time, credit in the economy
was nearly frozen because all the participants were worried
about the solvency of their trading partners. Had, say Bank
of America and JP Morgan failed, you likely would have had
other failures of companies that had exposure to them. Let's
say company X had exposure to JP Morgan. All the parties
doing business with X know it and hence were reluctant to
do things like extend normal financing to X. So, having the
spector of JP Morgan failinng was causing grid lock though
the whole financial system. BOA, JP, etc failing would have
extended all down the line, hitting even companies like the
midwest manufacturer with a revolving line of credit.

And clearly TARP worked. Of the $700bil authorized,
most of it has been paid back, including ALL by the
banks. Last estimate I saw was that less than $70bil
was still potentially at risk and it could actually turn out
that the govt will break even on the whole deal when
all the remaining investments, eg GM stock, are liquidated.
The banks also paid 10% interest on the loans. So,
how that could not be considered a major success is
beyond me. Especially by govt program standards.

To say it didn't work because the economy is still
not growing fast enough is like saying the emergency
first aid response to a horrific traffic wreck didn't work
because while all those involved survived, they spent
longer than expected in the hospital.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:31:12 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 23, 11:19*am, Elmo wrote:
On 24/10/2011 12:08 AM, wrote:
[...]

Whatever you do, Trader, don't let troll "Elmo" see this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...o-America.html
"World power swings back to America
The American phoenix is slowly rising again. Within five years or so,
the US will be well on its way to self-sufficiency in fuel and energy.
Manufacturing will have closed the labour gap with China in a clutch
of key industries. The current account might even be in surplus."

Nota bene: If you hear a loud boom, that's probably a sign that our
little troll "Elmo" did read it and his head exploded.

Aw.

Freakin' troll.

--
Dogman

On 26/10/2011 12:48 AM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:31:12 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 23, 11:19 am, wrote:
On 24/10/2011 12:08 AM, wrote:
[...]

Whatever you do, Trader, don't let troll "Elmo" see this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...o-America.html
"World power swings back to America
The American phoenix is slowly rising again. Within five years or so,
the US will be well on its way to self-sufficiency in fuel and energy.
Manufacturing will have closed the labour gap with China in a clutch
of key industries. The current account might even be in surplus."

Nota bene: If you hear a loud boom, that's probably a sign that our
little troll "Elmo" did read it and his head exploded.

No, the only loud noise around here is raucous laughter. One column,
from Ambrose Evens-Pritchard no less, supporting a possibility that
America might turn itself around is cause for laughter. You focus on the
comments of one writer renowned for his constant denigration of Europe,
a stance that often segues into US Support among a sea of "expert"
financial writers who see no likelihood of the US doing so. Even if
culling oil from shale, and the US is far from the only country involved
in this, it is a finite resource and the end is in sight. You need a
changed mindset, smaller cars and alternative energy sources to power
them. Add to that a European acceptance of public transport, with
housing located close to industry - no long commutes. America is not set
up to emulate Europe in areas that are essential for reducing energy
costs, it is the biggest per capita user of energy in the world. Look
at how well the couple of heavily Government supported cars that met
those criteria have already been supported. You can almost count the
sales on the fingers of one hand.

The truly ludicrous suggestion is that manufacturing will have closed
the labour gap. How? Your wages are too high, your factory processes are
not any better than China's, your raw material costs are the same, how
could this happen? You would not only have to meet China's cost of
exported goods, you would have to undercut it to take market share from
them. Undercut it by a good margin to overcome the current distrust and
dislike of America. You have never had reliable products, even the
domestic market prefers imported for quality and reliability.

To sum up, you need to cut your demand for energy, you need to have a
huge increase in the quality of manufactured goods, you need to be able
to undercut China's already extremely low prices for them, and you need
to do it while paying your labour force far less than they were
receiving twenty years ago.

Yes, that will happen.

I have to go and laugh some more. I'll be back in a day or two when I
finish doing so.

Oh, BTW way I forgot, the noted "sixteen of the top universities" is
well out of date. Didn't you see the rankings PUBLISHED IN THE US" a few
months back decrying the fact that they had fallen so far behind, that
the US educations system was turning out semi-literates with degrees?
Look around you on-line, you can usually tell an American poster by the
poor standard of written English. God, Americans need apps to work out
tips, how sad is that?

In article
,
" wrote:

I'll leave it for others to judge who's full of crap.

http://nomiprins.squarespace.com/storage/bailouttallyoct2011.pdf
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would have cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it¹s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That¹s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don¹t get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis

On Oct 26, 11:46*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
I'll leave it for others to judge who's full of crap.

http://nomiprins.squarespace.com/storage/bailouttallyoct2011.pdf


Yeah, that's a real credible source. Like they don't have a clear
agenda. What they have done is come up with a list of everything
they could possibly include as a "bailout". Like lending by the FED
to banks which has been going on since the creation of the FED.
Wasn't the whole point of saving the economy to increase
liquidity so banks could continue making loans? So, the FED
lowers interest rates and extends CREDIT, not gifts, to banks.
The banks take those loans, which will be paid back. The
loans made by the govt directly to those banks via TARP
have been paid back with 10% interest.
Exactly what the FED has been doing for a hundred years
and exactly what their role is in the financial system.
Your loons tally that as a bailout.

What exactly was YOUR solution?
For the FED to not extend those loans? Where would we
be then, Monday morning quarterback? I know, you'd be
here bitching about how the govt and the FED allowed a
financial catastrophy of unprecedented proportions to
occur and how it;s still all Wall Street's fault.

Why are you still here? Shouldn't you be at one of those
hippie rallies against capitalism?

In article
,
" wrote:

On Oct 26, 11:46*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
I'll leave it for others to judge who's full of crap.

http://nomiprins.squarespace.com/storage/bailouttallyoct2011.pdf


Yeah, that's a real credible source. Like they don't have a clear
agenda. What they have done is come up with a list of everything
they could possibly include as a "bailout".
Duh? What do you want to leave off the ledger?

Like lending by the FED
to banks which has been going on since the creation of the FED.
Not at this rate

Wasn't the whole point of saving the economy to increase
liquidity so banks could continue making loans?
And what have they done with "BAIL-OUT TAX DOLLARS" They've refused to
loan it, and that government loans at 0% interest and buy T bills and
bonds that pay about 3%. That didn't make it to your tally eitherr.

So, the FED
lowers interest rates and extends CREDIT, not gifts, to banks.
The banks take those loans, which will be paid back. The
loans made by the govt directly to those banks via TARP
have been paid back with 10% interest.
Exactly what the FED has been doing for a hundred years
and exactly what their role is in the financial system.
Your loons tally that as a bailout.

What exactly was YOUR solution?
For the FED to not extend those loans?
So much for your free market.

Where would we
be then, Monday morning quarterback? I know, you'd be
here bitching about how the govt and the FED allowed a
financial catastrophy of unprecedented proportions to
occur and how it;s still all Wall Street's fault.
All the subprime mortgages came to $1.4 trillion before they were
collateralized into $14 trillion of ABSs, CDOs, and CDSs by Wall Street.
If security banks want to bet, they should have been able to cover bets.
That's capitalism.

Oh, and who bought those toxic assets? Who bought AAA grade stocks only
to see them, almost magically, turn into crap? How much of those toxic
assets were purchased by the government.





Why are you still here? Shouldn't you be at one of those
hippie rallies against capitalism?

Instead of engaging in character assassination, why don't you argue your
point that $14 trillion of tax payer money didn't find it's way into
Wall St. accounts. This should be amusing :O)

Oh yeah, and tell me why corporate welfare is good, but not social
welfare?
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would have cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it¹s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That¹s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don¹t get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis

On Oct 27, 4:17*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
On Oct 26, 11:46 am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
I'll leave it for others to judge who's full of crap.

http://nomiprins.squarespace.com/storage/bailouttallyoct2011.pdf

Yeah, that's a real credible source. *Like they don't have a clear
agenda. *What they have done is come up with a list of everything
they could possibly include as a "bailout". *

Duh? What do you want to leave off the ledger?

Like lending by the FED
to banks which has been going on since the creation of the FED.

Not at this rate

Wasn't the whole point of saving the economy to increase
liquidity so banks could continue making loans? *

And what have they done with "BAIL-OUT TAX DOLLARS"

Once again, you are confused. That long list you presented
includes mostly lending by the FED. That lending is not from tax
dollars.

What they've done with it is to lend it out where they can.
You assume that businesses are all lining up to take out
loans. They are NOT. Business, like everyone else, is
hunkered down, worried about what comes next. They aren't
eager to take on new debt. And having a president that is
anti-business is a major factor. Interest rates are low
for things like an equity line of credit too. Have you
taken one out and spent the money?





They've refused to
loan it, and that government loans at 0% interest and buy T bills and
bonds that pay about 3%. That didn't make it to your tally eitherr.

FED loans are not tax payer dollars. NEver have been, never will
be.




So, the FED
lowers interest rates and extends CREDIT, not gifts, to banks.
The banks take those loans, which will be paid back. *The
loans made by the govt directly to those banks via TARP
have been paid back with 10% interest.
Exactly what the FED has been doing for a hundred years
and exactly what their role is in the financial system.
Your loons tally that as a bailout.

What exactly was YOUR solution?
For the FED to not extend those loans?

So much for your free market.

So much for your solution.





Where would we
be then, Monday morning quarterback? *I know, you'd be
here bitching about how the govt and the FED allowed a
financial catastrophy of unprecedented proportions to
occur and how it;s still all Wall Street's fault.

*All the subprime mortgages came to $1.4 trillion before they were
collateralized into $14 trillion of ABSs, CDOs, and CDSs by Wall Street.
If security banks want to bet, they should have been able to cover bets.
That's capitalism.

Yeah, they should have. They also should have had the same
crystal ball you do, so they would have seen that housing prices
were going to suddenly decline by 40%. But, unfortunately they
didn't. Just like the person who sold the house. And the person
who bought the house and knew the situation first hand, The real
estate
agents involved, the appraisers, the loan processors, govt which
encouraged those loans, etc. There is plenty of blame to go
around. But somehow, it apparently begins and ends with the
banks for you.

Still waiting to hear your solution to what should have been
done. No TARP, no aggressive easing of interest rates by
the FED, no loans by the FED....

Besides Mionday morning quaterbacking and bitching, what
would you have done?





Oh, and who bought those toxic assets? Who bought AAA grade stocks only
to see them, almost magically, turn into crap? How much of those toxic
assets were purchased by the government.







Why are you still here? *Shouldn't you be at one of those
hippie rallies against capitalism?

Instead of engaging in character assassination, why don't you argue your
point that $14 trillion of tax payer money didn't find it's way into
Wall St. accounts. This should be amusing :O)

It's very easy. FED loans are not taxpayer money. The FED's
very purpose since it's creation has been to make precisely those
loans and it's NOT taxpayer money.




Oh yeah, and tell me why corporate welfare is good, but not social
welfare?
--
- Billy


We have both. My problem is when you come in here lying and
making posts that claim we are spending many times on defense
what we spend on social programs by using BS data. The
reality is we are spending 2X+ on social programs compared to
defense. I can find in the constitution where it says it's the govts
job to defend the country. I'm still looking where it says it's the
govts job to force national healthcare on us.






Both the House and Senate budget plan would have cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don t get away with no taxation.
*- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_c...


Who does Ralph Nader thinks pays those corporate taxes in the end?
Let's say the price of corn goes up, what does General Foods do?
They raise the price of corn flakes and other products that use corn.
Economics 101 question:

Instead of the price of corn going up, the taxes on GF go up. What
does GF do?

In article
,
" wrote:

On Oct 27, 4:17*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
On Oct 26, 11:46 am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
I'll leave it for others to judge who's full of crap.

http://nomiprins.squarespace.com/storage/bailouttallyoct2011.pdf

Yeah, that's a real credible source. *Like they don't have a clear
agenda. *What they have done is come up with a list of everything
they could possibly include as a "bailout". *

Duh? What do you want to leave off the ledger?

Like lending by the FED
to banks which has been going on since the creation of the FED.

Not at this rate

Wasn't the whole point of saving the economy to increase
liquidity so banks could continue making loans? *

And what have they done with "BAIL-OUT TAX DOLLARS"

Once again, you are confused. That long list you presented
includes mostly lending by the FED. That lending is not from tax
dollars.

What they've done with it is to lend it out where they can.
You assume that businesses are all lining up to take out
loans. They are NOT. Business, like everyone else, is
hunkered down, worried about what comes next. They aren't
eager to take on new debt. And having a president that is
anti-business is a major factor. Interest rates are low
for things like an equity line of credit too. Have you
taken one out and spent the money?





They've refused to
loan it, and that government loans at 0% interest and buy T bills and
bonds that pay about 3%. That didn't make it to your tally eitherr.

FED loans are not tax payer dollars. NEver have been, never will
be.




So, the FED
lowers interest rates and extends CREDIT, not gifts, to banks.
The banks take those loans, which will be paid back. *The
loans made by the govt directly to those banks via TARP
have been paid back with 10% interest.
Exactly what the FED has been doing for a hundred years
and exactly what their role is in the financial system.
Your loons tally that as a bailout.

What exactly was YOUR solution?
For the FED to not extend those loans?

So much for your free market.

So much for your solution.





Where would we
be then, Monday morning quarterback? *I know, you'd be
here bitching about how the govt and the FED allowed a
financial catastrophy of unprecedented proportions to
occur and how it;s still all Wall Street's fault.

*All the subprime mortgages came to $1.4 trillion before they were
collateralized into $14 trillion of ABSs, CDOs, and CDSs by Wall Street.
If security banks want to bet, they should have been able to cover bets.
That's capitalism.

Yeah, they should have. They also should have had the same
crystal ball you do, so they would have seen that housing prices
were going to suddenly decline by 40%. But, unfortunately they
didn't. Just like the person who sold the house. And the person
who bought the house and knew the situation first hand, The real
estate
agents involved, the appraisers, the loan processors, govt which
encouraged those loans, etc. There is plenty of blame to go
around. But somehow, it apparently begins and ends with the
banks for you.

Not just me.

Question: What about this issue of the government¹s bailout being aimed
primarily at the financial institutions rather than the homeowners
who‹and the defaults that are at the root of the crisis?

Answer: "Yes. Well, it suggests that the bailout is either incompetence
or fraud, because the problem, according to the government, is the
defaulting mortgages, so the money should be directed at refinancing the
mortgages and paying off the foreclosed ones. And that would restore the
value of the mortgage-backed securities that are threatening the
financial institutions. If the value was restored, the crisis would be
over. So there¹s no connection between the government¹s explanation of
the crisis and its solution to the crisis."

- Paul Craig Roberts,
former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department in the Reagan
administration and a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
He has taught at Georgetown University and Stanford University and is
the author of many books, including Supply-Side Revolution: An Insider¹s
Account of Policymaking in Washington.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/17/ex_asst_treasury_sec_paul_craig
And that was 2008

Still waiting to hear your solution to what should have been
done. No TARP, no aggressive easing of interest rates by
the FED, no loans by the FED....

And then there is the Congressional Budget Office . Explaining how
America has changed for the worse under neo-liberal capitalism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...s-why-occupy-w
all-street-struck-a-nerve/2011/10/27/gIQA3bsMNM_story.html

It's easy to see that you aren't serious, because you feign ignorance of
common information. You obviously have lots of time to play games.



Besides Mionday morning quaterbacking and bitching, what
would you have done?





Oh, and who bought those toxic assets? Who bought AAA grade stocks only
to see them, almost magically, turn into crap? How much of those toxic
assets were purchased by the government.







Why are you still here? *Shouldn't you be at one of those
hippie rallies against capitalism?

Instead of engaging in character assassination, why don't you argue your
point that $14 trillion of tax payer money didn't find it's way into
Wall St. accounts. This should be amusing :O)

It's very easy. FED loans are not taxpayer money. The FED's
very purpose since it's creation has been to make precisely those
loans and it's NOT taxpayer money.




Oh yeah, and tell me why corporate welfare is good, but not social
welfare?
--
- Billy


We have both. My problem is when you come in here lying and
making posts that claim we are spending many times on defense
what we spend on social programs by using BS data. The
reality is we are spending 2X+ on social programs compared to
defense. I can find in the constitution where it says it's the govts
job to defend the country. I'm still looking where it says it's the
govts job to force national healthcare on us.






Both the House and Senate budget plan would have cut Social Security and
Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and
jobs. And it s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do
is you get rid of corporate welfare. That s hundreds of billions of dollars
a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don t get away with
no taxation.
*- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_c...


Who does Ralph Nader thinks pays those corporate taxes in the end?
Let's say the price of corn goes up, what does General Foods do?
They raise the price of corn flakes and other products that use corn.
Economics 101 question:

Instead of the price of corn going up, the taxes on GF go up. What
does GF do?
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would have cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it¹s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That¹s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don¹t get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis