Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Like anyone gives two hoots for the opinion of the board Nazi.
Ahhh.. Just another artificial waste of taxpayer money then --- Right?
I'm not in a position to evaluate that, but I doubt their intent was to bring down the economy, so the fact that something else was really at fault doesn't indicate that they were a waste.
OF COURSE those credits had a LARGE effect. Created a FRENZY in fact everytime they threatened to end them.
They may have had a lot of support, hence the frenzy, but nonetheless they were of minimal impact on the economy. Most of the mortgages that failed were not part of that program; in fact, most of them were loans on commercial property. Those are the ones that were bundled into the derivatives that failed along with them, and it was the failure of the derivatives, not of the mortgages themselves, that caused the financial meltdown.
Actually, the fact that a lot of people support domestic drilling is itself a result of corporate cash, which is spent on public relations activities as well as on lobbying Congress.
Yes, actually, it does, because the insurance companies do the same thing. Oh, and by the way:
Another Poll Shows Majority Support for Single-Payer
While opposition to universal health care is not nonexistent, a majority of the people support a single-payer system. Yet single payer was taken off the table at the beginning of negotiations about health-care reform in 2009, at a time when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Why do you suppose that happened?
Because most Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans, and the health-insurance industry is one of their biggest donor groups. No other reason at all.
Let's put it this way. Anything that has the support of a majority of the people is something that business isn't going to spend a lot of money lobbying for, because it's likely to pass anyway. If they want it to happen, business will simply let it happen. If they don't, they'll lobby against it. What they put real effort into lobbying for, is something the people don't necessarily want. And yes, I would definitely include farm subsidies and ethanol subsidies into that category: pure corporate giveaways.
More general than that, but basically yes. The banks might not have foreseen the need for a bailout specifically before the meltdown, but they could certainly see the value in having bought-and-paid-for elected officials. As it happened, they did need a bailout, so they got their bribed pols to provide it for them. If they had not needed a bailout, they would still have found good uses for them. If nothing else, they could have continued to forestall re-regulation of the financial industry, as indeed they are doing now.
Even when the banks didn't WANT the money -- they were intimidated into taking it.
Oh, please. You expect me to believe that there were banks that didn't want the money? Do you have any solid evidence of this? Or of pigs with wings, which is just about as likely?
Why would corporations want to continue to waste time lobbying and donating if the power spigot got turned off?
To turn it back on, of course. That's why it was turned on in the first place.
Oh, please. You expect me to believe that there were banks that didn't want the money? Do you have any solid evidence of this? Or of pigs with wings, which is just about as likely?
I was told that the regulators supposedly asked the bank to participate, but the bank wasnt given a choice to participate or not the funds (equal to approximately 3% of the banks total assets) just showed up one day. According to the American Banking Association (via the Wall Street Journal Deal Journal blog), my sources bank was hardly the only one. According to the WSJ, ABA president Edward Yingling wrote to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
[M]any banks have been contacted by regulators, and urged, sometimes forcefully, to participate in the [Capital Purchase Program] (emphasis original).
And the International Herald Tribune ran an article on healthy banks who were being pressured to take bailout money that they didnt want for fear of being stigmatized.
If we assume for just a moment that the $250 billion used for the Capital Purchase Program is going to all of the banks in the U.S., than a huge amount of money is being forced on businesses who dont want it. According to the ABA letter mentioned above, 95% of all banks were sufficiently capitalized and didnt need the extra cash. If we even assume that only 50% would have said no had they not been pressured, thats almost 120 billion that didnt need to be spent.
I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?
My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.
It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.
If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.
Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.
Poor little sheep just can't believe the government is underhanded and coercive
Why do you say silly things like this? On a thread about the Occupy Wall Street protests, why do you misrepresent them as pro-government when it couldn't be more obvious that that isn't even remotely true? Why not present your arguments without the lies? Is it really that hard?
None of the material you presented shows any coercion on the part of the government to force banks to take the TARP money. That the investments "would be required" says nothing about exactly what is requiring them. The obvious candidate would be the financial circumstances of the bank in question. When the alternative is bankruptcy, it can reasonably be stated that the bank "has no choice," or anyway no good choice, without that implying that the government is requiring the bank to take the money. That is what you need to show in order to support your contention, and you have not shown it.
The same argument applies with regard to repayment. What consequences, specifically, is the government threatening if the loans are repaid early? (I assume "early" since all loans are of course expected to be repaid.) A shortage of capital is one possibility, leading to possible consequences if other loans by the bank run into default. If that's what the government says, this is a prediction and not a demand.
All of the evidence you have presented is subject to interpretations that do not support your contentions, and as your contentions are frankly absurd, quite clear and unambiguous proof is required for them.
When you BLATANTLY suggest that a LARGE fraction of the American people are BOUGHT by the oil companies to DEMAND more domestic oil and gas production -- you lose the debate right there.
You'll find the thread at: http://www.usmessageboard.com/4094228-post1.html
And the International Herald Tribune ran an article on healthy banks who were being pressured to take bailout money that they didnt want for fear of being stigmatized.
If we assume for just a moment that the $250 billion used for the Capital Purchase Program is going to all of the banks in the U.S.
My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler
If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.
Where did I ever say the Obnoxious Whining Sheep are pro government?
And it's you who can't believe the fucking government uses strong arm tactics to get what it wants.
And the International Herald Tribune ran an article on healthy banks who were being pressured to take bailout money that they didn’t want for fear of being stigmatized.
All right, but what exactly does "pressured" mean? "Look, schmuck, if you don't take this money, there's a real good chance you're going to go bankrupt within six months. Here are the figures to prove it. Stop being an ass." That's pressure; however, it is not government coercion.
You're naive then. Dangerously so.Where did I ever say the Obnoxious Whining Sheep are pro government?
"Poor little sheep just can't believe the government is underhanded and coercive"
The implication is obvious.
And it's you who can't believe the fucking government uses strong arm tactics to get what it wants.
On the contrary, what I can't believe is tinfoil hat notions of what the government does want. Also, I am not missing the element of bribery that helps determine what the government wants.
Actually, the government wants just about nothing for itself except to go on existing and, for elected officials, to be reelected. Otherwise, everything the government wants, it wants on behalf of someone else. That "someone else" is theoretically supposed to be the voters. Too often, however, it's the campaign donors. That's the root of the sickness in our system.
You're naive then. Dangerously so.Where did I ever say the Obnoxious Whining Sheep are pro government?
"Poor little sheep just can't believe the government is underhanded and coercive"
The implication is obvious.
And it's you who can't believe the fucking government uses strong arm tactics to get what it wants.
On the contrary, what I can't believe is tinfoil hat notions of what the government does want. Also, I am not missing the element of bribery that helps determine what the government wants.
Actually, the government wants just about nothing for itself except to go on existing and, for elected officials, to be reelected. Otherwise, everything the government wants, it wants on behalf of someone else. That "someone else" is theoretically supposed to be the voters. Too often, however, it's the campaign donors. That's the root of the sickness in our system.
The government, and those elected to it, want power. Period.
The founding fathers knew this fact and authored our Constitution to limit that power.
The OWS wants to give government more power, and especially oppressive power.
The government, and those elected to it, want power. Period.
The founding fathers knew this fact and authored our Constitution to limit that power.
The OWS wants to give government more power, and especially oppressive power.
Where did I ever say the Obnoxious Whining Sheep are pro government?
"Poor little sheep just can't believe the government is underhanded and coercive"
The implication is obvious.
And it's you who can't believe the fucking government uses strong arm tactics to get what it wants.
On the contrary, what I can't believe is tinfoil hat notions of what the government does want. Also, I am not missing the element of bribery that helps determine what the government wants.
Actually, the government wants just about nothing for itself except to go on existing and, for elected officials, to be reelected. Otherwise, everything the government wants, it wants on behalf of someone else. That "someone else" is theoretically supposed to be the voters. Too often, however, it's the campaign donors. That's the root of the sickness in our system.
Like anyone gives two hoots for the opinion of the board Nazi.
Yes, Preius, you wouldn't mind violence, not if it serves your desired end. Of course, you'll denounce it publicly, while you relish it in private. So what if some "Wall Street types" are killed; better them than you, and they "deserve it" anyway, right? What happens when it goes to the next level? What happens if one of these loons bombs a CEO's house, and kills their family members-do they "deserve it" too? What happens, if violence breaks out in the streets? You think no innocents might be killed by stray bullets? Oh, but it can be "contained", right?
What happens, if you're wrong? What happens, if after the mob turns on the desired scapegoats, they start taking out their frustration on everyone else who happens to have more than they do? You see, there are some differences between this and Krystallnacht that go beyond scapegoating "the Jews" vs. scapegoating "the 1%". The Nazis were organized; this is a rabble. What happens, when they turn on whoever is handy? What happens, if they turn on YOU (I'm sure they'll be very moved to hear you're a "social liberal"-mobs are very amenable to reasoning, that way)?
You had better be careful what you wish for, because this is a very divided country, along a number of fronts, there are plenty of guns, and they are not all on the same side. Violence is an easy thing to start; stopping it can be another matter entirely. At best, you'll have one hell of a lot of bloodshed; at worst, you'll have neighbor against neighbor, with a lot of factions and shifting alliances. Think you can just hunker down and sit it out? Don't bet on it. Think you can buy safety for yourself and your family? Think again. If and when it all hits the fan, it will be a bloody, atrocity-filled mess. The best case scenario is that the active military can regain control, eventually, in which case the survivors will end up with a police state (and be grateful for that). If not, your only friend will be a weapon, and your only allies a defensible position, and enough combat experience to know what to do with both. Eventually, you will kill or be killed for a box of ammunition, a can of food, or a jug of water. I have been in combat, and I can tell you that you had better hope to whatever God you pray to that it never comes to that.
Clearly you are interested in hijacking this thread to share your views about folks of the Hebrew faith - go start a thread elsewhere on your own.
Disliking violence is like disliking emotion. It is a part of life, get used to it, and stop trying to change human nature. The real Tea Party, actually known as the Sons of Liberty involved John Hancock and Sam Adams with their cronies burning the homes of British tax collectors and perhaps murdering a few.
Historians have turned this into "exciting stories of a brewer, and tea merchant." America is as addicted to violence as it is to alcohol and tobacco. You can gloss over it for the kids in history books, but don't be naive yourself.
Here is my prediction if unemployment gets worse and people continue losing their homes. Some poor guy who is about to commit suicide is going to decide to take a few Wall Streeters with him or her. There will be upset when executives are sprayed with bullets, but I doubt there will be any tears.
Our military, (as France's did in 1789) will have to consider how to handle things responsibly to preserve our republic. As did the French soldiers who were told to fire on starving civilians at the Bastille, Americans will have to consider if they fire on their countrymen, or corporate executives and politicians. Now these soldiers at all levels have been underpaid for years. Many rely on food stamps, and few own their own homes. So soldiers and their families will have a stake in the outcome personally. People never seem to have a problem responding in their own self interest.
The American Revolution took place because the wealthy were unhappy with English law and taxes. We already have the Patriotic Millionaires who feel they SHOULD pay more taxes. Patriotic Millionaires Echo Occupy Wall Street (PHOTOS, VIDEOS) So, all the players are there, and the Second Amendment assures weaponry.
Do I endorse violence, no. Do I understand that violence is part of reality, and a political tool, yes. When things get close to a boil, I will invite the people I usually have over for the Academy Awards to come over for cocktails and big screen TV. I won't be at the scene of the violence, but I will write my second check to the 99%. This is going to involve a lot of lawyers when it happens. In the end, there are more working class and poor than wealthy 1%.
My comments to you Preius, had NOTHING to do with my "views of folks of the Hebrew faith", and everything to do with the implications of civil disorder for this nation! I understand violence, and its uses, quite well; some years back I engaged in quite a bit of it myself, in a little place called Vietnam. I was not some unwilling conscript; I was an officer, and a professional soldier; as such, violence was my profession, and I was very, very good at it. From what I know of those who serve in uniform today, I think I can tell you with some confidence that they are not so different from the soldiers I served with, and that if ordered, they will open fire on whoever they are ordered to open fire on. They may do so reluctantly, but they will do it. There are also a number of American veterans, many of whom are battle-hardened, who will remember the oath they took, and will also fight against any group of "revolutionaries", if necessary. The "revolution", if and when it comes, is not something you are going to watch as a spectator on your big screen TV in the comfort of your living room (unless it is put down so fast you can watch the lack of drama unfold). No, if it comes anywhere near success, the violence attendant to the process will be coming to a neighborhood near you, and sooner, rather than later. This will not be "everyone against the rich", and there is a likelihood, in any event, that those you despise will hire some forces of their own to fight against the side you favor. What you are likely to get as a result, are a number of factions fighting for control, some of them employing mercenaries fighting strictly for money, ideology, or both. What you will have in that event, is something that will make Northern Ireland look like a walk in the park, by comparison.
You are apparently relying on the assumption that most of the people will either sit out the fight, or join in on your side. That assumption is badly flawed. The whole of the 99% does not support your agenda, not even close, politically; much less are they willing to fight on your behalf. As I told you earlier, this country has a copious supply of guns, and people who know how to use them, and they are not all on the same side. That is going to make for a messy, bloody affair. Your notion of revolution is as flawed as that of those on the far right who nourish the illusion that if it comes to a fight, those on the left will be doing all the dying. There will be plenty to go around on all sides, you may be certain of that. What you apparently hope for will not be easy, cheap, quick or pretty, and when it is over, you have as good a chance as anyone else to not be around to regret it. I suggest you, and anyone else inclined to foment violent revolution and/or civil unrest, whether openly or behind the scenes, think about that, long and hard.
Both these statements are incorrect. The Constitution was created to expand government power, not restrict it.
Both these statements are incorrect. The Constitution was created to expand government power, not restrict it.
That is not true. That is a mere simplification by a mere simpleton.
Both these statements are incorrect. The Constitution was created to expand government power, not restrict it.
That is not true. That is a mere simplification by a mere simpleton.
This disruptive Unkotare disagrees with everyone on everything and has no links or facts to support his remarks. Just an empty wagon making noise as he goes down the street. I wrote him off........
That is not true. That is a mere simplification by a mere simpleton.
This disruptive Unkotare disagrees with everyone on everything and has no links or facts to support his remarks. Just an empty wagon making noise as he goes down the street. I wrote him off........
Here we see the anti-American proudly displaying his ignorance yet again. Could it be that he skimmed a paragraph on the Articles of Confederation and then concluded that the Constitution we replaced it with was all about expanding government power without being aware of all the contentious debates and struggles over just such issues, issues that nearly derailed the project entirely? Hmmm...could be...he is, after all, an idiot.
