The bank rescue - An Obama miracle.

[bedowin62]

...like if they didnt take the money it was going to go back into the Treasury or to the People where it belongs

 

[bedowin62]

so dems in charge of both chambers of congress let republicans write obama's stimulus/

what a joke you are

 

[bedowin62]

Sallow; nice fierce avatar. but is there anything you can offer on these boards that isnt some weak-kneed pile of pathetic excuses?

 

[bedowin62]

Obama to GOP: 'They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.'



www.americanthinker.com/.../obama_to_gop_they_ca...*





American Thinker





Oct 26, 2010 - Obama to GOP: 'They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back. ... civil disobedience” for refusing to sit in the back of the bus, Obama now ...

===============================================================

this doesnt sound like somebody would allow Repubs to "basically write" his Stimulus


you lie to YOURSELF

 

[Edgetho]

Written by a guy from the Bush administration, no less..

I remember the feeling of dismay at the seemingly half-baked plan while watching the speech with others at a New York City asset management firm where I was talking about the economy. The reaction of equity markets mirrored the unhappiness in that room, with stocks down more than 5 percent that day.

It turns out, however, that the program sketched out by Mr. Geithner both came to pass and made a difference. Five years later, the United States financial sector is in much better condition. Banks have absorbed losses from loans made during the bubble and rebuilt their capital, and investor confidence has returned. Mr. Geithner’s proposals did not all work right away or in the scale initially envisioned. In the end, however, Secretary Geithner deserves credit for making good on what he promised.

By far the most important component of Mr. Geithner’s proposal was a stress test to assess whether banks had “sufficient financial strength to absorb losses and to remain strongly capitalized” in the event of another severe downturn. Led by the Federal Reserve, the stress test involved coming up with forecasts of banks’ financial positions in the event of a hypothetical renewed recession and housing price collapse. Banks that could not make it through this very negative economic scenario would be given six months to raise capital from private investors, after which regulators would have pressed them to accept more TARP capital.

It is hard to remember, but back in the spring of 2009 many people believed that the United States government would nationalize large banks, starting with Citigroup and then moving on to Bank of America and perhaps others. Indeed, according to the New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza, this was a well-founded concern in the sense that nationalization was discussed as a policy option starting with Citigroup and then moving on to Bank of America and perhaps others. Indeed, according to the New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza, this was a well-founded concern in the sense that nationalization was discussed as a policy option by the Obama administration amid a swell of sentiment for this action among economists and columnists.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...php=true&_type=blogs&partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Lying scum-sucking ignorant bitch....

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Obama saved this country but he needs to do a lot more to get us back to the innovator we were in the 1950, 1960s and 1970s...There's a lot of cave men but I can only hope we can do it.

If he does what needs to be done, the right will scream about his use of executive orders. As long as half our congress cares only about hurting one man while making a very few even more welathy, we cannot move forward.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I often wonder why the 'Republicans' and their fellow travelers (those embarrassed by GWB and the Neo Cons) support only the few and not the many? And when did they begin to embrace avarice as a virtue (it's YOUR money)?

Many of the ones I wonder about call themselves Christians, but little in their words equate with Christianity - unless one focuses exclusively on the Crusades and Inquisitions. Now I suspect most of the Christians who claim Christ as their savior are not Catholic, but some are, and the hate they express for liberals, progressives and Democrats as well as other of our citizens and non citizens is nearly pathological and not of the teaching of Jesus.

When did they accept a dogmatic ideology which replaced pragmatic real world action and planning? And why do 'Republicans' curse those who question their dogma and paint the label RINO on others who stray from the path? What is wrong with open minds and legitimate questions?

Why have 'Republicans' sought to change the description of our government from a Democratic Republic to a Constitutional Republic; and even barely literate members of this New Right want us to believe they are experts and know the exact meaning of every phrase of the Constitution, no matter how ambiguous any phrase may be?

When did red baiting and the RED SCARE resurrect from the ash heap of history and the alcoholic inquisitor become a hero to the New Right. Is it only their ignorance or something more? When one of the members of the new right suggests Hitler was less evil than Stalin, even those who have never read a history book must shake their head and wonder is that person insane, or does s/he have a hidden agenda? Evil is evil, may seem only to be tautological , but in this comparison it is informative.

 

[Sallow]

YAWN
this idiot cant stop making a fool of himself. both sides want the other guy's President to serve only one term.

it's hilarious watching LWNJs rant about filibusters; these are the guys who scream at the top of their lungs how "disastrous" the bush years were. so they just refused to even try to stop policies they insist now that they knew were destructive back then; because they were afraid of filibustering in the name of the country; for fear of being called "obstructionists' or something?

cowards and hypocrites

Really?

Truly?

When was the last time you heard a Democrat in congress openly call for obstruction and making it a mission statement to cause the President to fail so badly that he gets one term?

Tip O'Neill worked with Ronnie.

Multiple democrats including Pelosi and Kennedy worked with George W. Bush.

But feel free.

While you are at it, you might want to let us all know when the Democrats closed the government for long periods under a Republican President.

You know like the Republicans did under Carter, Clinton and Obama.

Or when the Democrats impeached a Republican President.

Spoiler: Nixon was never impeached.

Republicans IMPEACHED Clinton but still worked with him
the ugly truth your coward self cant handle is that obama doesnt have a leadership bone in his body; and the far-Left Dem Party WANTED to go it alone.

obama LITERALLY told Republicans to "go sit in the back of the bus". somebody who wants to work with others doesnt speak that day. it always comes down to some stupid talking point you losers feed yourselves

you're a loser lying to HIMSELF with worn-out talkng points

That's the biggest pile of bullshit ever.

 

[Sallow]

Written by a guy from the Bush administration, no less..

I remember the feeling of dismay at the seemingly half-baked plan while watching the speech with others at a New York City asset management firm where I was talking about the economy. The reaction of equity markets mirrored the unhappiness in that room, with stocks down more than 5 percent that day.

It turns out, however, that the program sketched out by Mr. Geithner both came to pass and made a difference. Five years later, the United States financial sector is in much better condition. Banks have absorbed losses from loans made during the bubble and rebuilt their capital, and investor confidence has returned. Mr. Geithner’s proposals did not all work right away or in the scale initially envisioned. In the end, however, Secretary Geithner deserves credit for making good on what he promised.

By far the most important component of Mr. Geithner’s proposal was a stress test to assess whether banks had “sufficient financial strength to absorb losses and to remain strongly capitalized” in the event of another severe downturn. Led by the Federal Reserve, the stress test involved coming up with forecasts of banks’ financial positions in the event of a hypothetical renewed recession and housing price collapse. Banks that could not make it through this very negative economic scenario would be given six months to raise capital from private investors, after which regulators would have pressed them to accept more TARP capital.

It is hard to remember, but back in the spring of 2009 many people believed that the United States government would nationalize large banks, starting with Citigroup and then moving on to Bank of America and perhaps others. Indeed, according to the New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza, this was a well-founded concern in the sense that nationalization was discussed as a policy option starting with Citigroup and then moving on to Bank of America and perhaps others. Indeed, according to the New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza, this was a well-founded concern in the sense that nationalization was discussed as a policy option by the Obama administration amid a swell of sentiment for this action among economists and columnists.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...php=true&_type=blogs&partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Lying scum-sucking ignorant bitch....

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

What's a matter little girl?

Got your panties in a bunch?

Run along. Play with your "My little pony" dolls.

Adults are talking here, dear.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama multiplied the unemployed and then took 36 weeks of benefits and extended them to over 99 weeks!

Praise be His Holy Name!

The Jews had a light that burned for 8 days and Jesus fed the multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, but what is that compared to the Miracle Work of Barry Obama, Praise Be His Holy Name

 

[Sallow]

Obama to GOP: 'They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.'



www.americanthinker.com/.../obama_to_gop_they_ca...*





American Thinker





Oct 26, 2010 - Obama to GOP: 'They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back. ... civil disobedience” for refusing to sit in the back of the bus, Obama now ...

===============================================================

this doesnt sound like somebody would allow Repubs to "basically write" his Stimulus


you lie to YOURSELF

Well if you are going to get all hung up words..and such..

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)

-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.

-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.

-- Business Week, July 30, 2001

"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense." --Washington, D.C. April 18, 2006 (Read more; listen to audio clip; watch video clip)

 

[bedowin62]

Obama to GOP: 'They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.'



www.americanthinker.com/.../obama_to_gop_they_ca...*





American Thinker





Oct 26, 2010 - Obama to GOP: 'They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back. ... civil disobedience” for refusing to sit in the back of the bus, Obama now ...

===============================================================

this doesnt sound like somebody would allow Repubs to "basically write" his Stimulus


you lie to YOURSELF

Well if you are going to get all hung up words..and such..

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)

-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.

-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.

-- Business Week, July 30, 2001

"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense." --Washington, D.C. April 18, 2006 (Read more; listen to audio clip; watch video clip)

oh ; the old Bush did it too version of "change"

i see

snicker

 

[Sallow]

Obama multiplied the unemployed and then took 36 weeks of benefits and extended them to over 99 weeks!

Praise be His Holy Name!

The Jews had a light that burned for 8 days and Jesus fed the multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, but what is that compared to the Miracle Work of Barry Obama, Praise Be His Holy Name

You forgot Downgraded!

You are slipping!

On a side note. Heard about this on the radio on the way home and thought of you..

Zappa Plays Zappa > Tour Dates

Thank me later.

 

[bendog]

Obama multiplied the unemployed and then took 36 weeks of benefits and extended them to over 99 weeks!

Praise be His Holy Name!

The Jews had a light that burned for 8 days and Jesus fed the multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, but what is that compared to the Miracle Work of Barry Obama, Praise Be His Holy Name

You forgot Downgraded!

You are slipping!

On a side note. Heard about this on the radio on the way home and thought of you..

Zappa Plays Zappa > Tour Dates

Thank me later.

I think its more simple. There is a view Reagan supported removing transparency from markets, ending the fed and going back to the gold standard.

 

[Sallow]

Obama multiplied the unemployed and then took 36 weeks of benefits and extended them to over 99 weeks!

Praise be His Holy Name!

The Jews had a light that burned for 8 days and Jesus fed the multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, but what is that compared to the Miracle Work of Barry Obama, Praise Be His Holy Name

You forgot Downgraded!

You are slipping!

On a side note. Heard about this on the radio on the way home and thought of you..

Zappa Plays Zappa > Tour Dates

Thank me later.

I think its more simple. There is a view Reagan supported removing transparency from markets, ending the fed and going back to the gold standard.

That's probably how he felt during the first term.

But like many other Presidents that sat in the chair, his perspective changed a great deal as time went on.

 

[OKTexas]

Written by a guy from the Bush administration, no less..

I remember the feeling of dismay at the seemingly half-baked plan while watching the speech with others at a New York City asset management firm where I was talking about the economy. The reaction of equity markets mirrored the unhappiness in that room, with stocks down more than 5 percent that day.

It turns out, however, that the program sketched out by Mr. Geithner both came to pass and made a difference. Five years later, the United States financial sector is in much better condition. Banks have absorbed losses from loans made during the bubble and rebuilt their capital, and investor confidence has returned. Mr. Geithner’s proposals did not all work right away or in the scale initially envisioned. In the end, however, Secretary Geithner deserves credit for making good on what he promised.

By far the most important component of Mr. Geithner’s proposal was a stress test to assess whether banks had “sufficient financial strength to absorb losses and to remain strongly capitalized” in the event of another severe downturn. Led by the Federal Reserve, the stress test involved coming up with forecasts of banks’ financial positions in the event of a hypothetical renewed recession and housing price collapse. Banks that could not make it through this very negative economic scenario would be given six months to raise capital from private investors, after which regulators would have pressed them to accept more TARP capital.

It is hard to remember, but back in the spring of 2009 many people believed that the United States government would nationalize large banks, starting with Citigroup and then moving on to Bank of America and perhaps others. Indeed, according to the New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza, this was a well-founded concern in the sense that nationalization was discussed as a policy option starting with Citigroup and then moving on to Bank of America and perhaps others. Indeed, according to the New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza, this was a well-founded concern in the sense that nationalization was discussed as a policy option by the Obama administration amid a swell of sentiment for this action among economists and columnists.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...php=true&_type=blogs&partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

From you link:

"On the bank rescue, however, the passage of time casts a considerably more favorable light than could possibly have been imagined back when his financial stability plan was announced."

So now with the mulatto messiah, considerably more favorable, is a miracle. I guess with the low expectations he has garnered, some might see it that way. Too freaking funny.

 

[Sallow]

Written by a guy from the Bush administration, no less..

I remember the feeling of dismay at the seemingly half-baked plan while watching the speech with others at a New York City asset management firm where I was talking about the economy. The reaction of equity markets mirrored the unhappiness in that room, with stocks down more than 5 percent that day.

It turns out, however, that the program sketched out by Mr. Geithner both came to pass and made a difference. Five years later, the United States financial sector is in much better condition. Banks have absorbed losses from loans made during the bubble and rebuilt their capital, and investor confidence has returned. Mr. Geithner’s proposals did not all work right away or in the scale initially envisioned. In the end, however, Secretary Geithner deserves credit for making good on what he promised.

By far the most important component of Mr. Geithner’s proposal was a stress test to assess whether banks had “sufficient financial strength to absorb losses and to remain strongly capitalized” in the event of another severe downturn. Led by the Federal Reserve, the stress test involved coming up with forecasts of banks’ financial positions in the event of a hypothetical renewed recession and housing price collapse. Banks that could not make it through this very negative economic scenario would be given six months to raise capital from private investors, after which regulators would have pressed them to accept more TARP capital.

It is hard to remember, but back in the spring of 2009 many people believed that the United States government would nationalize large banks, starting with Citigroup and then moving on to Bank of America and perhaps others. Indeed, according to the New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza, this was a well-founded concern in the sense that nationalization was discussed as a policy option starting with Citigroup and then moving on to Bank of America and perhaps others. Indeed, according to the New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza, this was a well-founded concern in the sense that nationalization was discussed as a policy option by the Obama administration amid a swell of sentiment for this action among economists and columnists.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...php=true&_type=blogs&partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

From you link:

"On the bank rescue, however, the passage of time casts a considerably more favorable light than could possibly have been imagined back when his financial stability plan was announced."

So now with the mulatto messiah, considerably more favorable, is a miracle. I guess with the low expectations he has garnered, some might see it that way. Too freaking funny.

It's kinda hard to take racists seriously.

I mean even Buchanan, a die hard racist, doesn't mention race in most of his analysis.

Which is why I can say, "That guy has a point".

This post?

Not so much.

 

[bendog]

You forgot Downgraded!

You are slipping!

On a side note. Heard about this on the radio on the way home and thought of you..

Zappa Plays Zappa > Tour Dates

Thank me later.

I think its more simple. There is a view Reagan supported removing transparency from markets, ending the fed and going back to the gold standard.

That's probably how he felt during the first term.

But like many other Presidents that sat in the chair, his perspective changed a great deal as time went on.

Naw, he had no problem with Volker's use of monetarism, but he replaced him with Greenspan, who followed the same banking policies. And they were based on Friedman's monetarism, which did not advocate ending the fed or using a commodity based currency.

OT: but Greenspan did come full circle on the debt debacle. He felt the fed had no role in regulating housing lenders. Yet, the fed did have statutory power to do so. We never got the fed govt totally out of the mortgage market, yet at the same time we didn't allow the fed govt to prevent a few people from gaming the market for the gain of the few and cost to the many. People point to the end of Reaganomics. I'd say, look no further.

 

[bedowin62]

the OP wants to credit obama with a "miracle".

and the idiotic Left has the gall to cry when others accuse them of worshipping obama as they would a God

 

[bedowin62]

For Obama so loved the poor he created millions more of them.


idiots and hypocrites