By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Some of $700B hard at work to help...

akuma587 on 28 October 2008
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Welfare for the rich confirmed. We spend about $30 billion a year on welfare for the poor, but the average "welfare" for the rich is almost triple that. Yet you don't hear Republicans complaining about that do you.

Weren't the republicans the ones who voted against the Bailout in the first place stating that there wasn't enough regulations and checks on it... and that some of them were just completly against welfare of any kind?

I'm pretty sure that was the house republicans who did that.


Either way... where's the oversight?  This is the difference between regulation and oversight.  The congress could eaisly block this from happening and demand the money back... yet.

Bush was the one who proposed it.

And there isn't regulation or oversight as far as I can tell.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 28 October 2008
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Welfare for the rich confirmed. We spend about $30 billion a year on welfare for the poor, but the average "welfare" for the rich is almost triple that. Yet you don't hear Republicans complaining about that do you.

Weren't the republicans the ones who voted against the Bailout in the first place stating that there wasn't enough regulations and checks on it... and that some of them were just completly against welfare of any kind?

I'm pretty sure that was the house republicans who did that.


Either way... where's the oversight?  This is the difference between regulation and oversight.  The congress could eaisly block this from happening and demand the money back... yet.

Bush was the one who proposed it.

And there isn't regulation or oversight as far as I can tell.

With near unanmious support... while a large number of republicans were against it.

Bush was "going maverick" on the plan.  Either that or a large portion of the republican house was.

Your choice.  It was a democratic backed bill more then a republican backed one and it took a LOT of arm twisting to get republicans to agree to it... and there was a lot of complaining from the republicans.

Also all the money spend is open to congressional review... thanks to the republicans.  So... plenty of oversight.

Unless you think Obama has been lying when he claimed that we should demand back money spend wrongly.

 



Rath on 28 October 2008

Buying out troubled banks = buying out and proofing toxic loans = what this bailout is meant to do.



NJ5 on 28 October 2008
Rath said:
Buying out troubled banks = buying out and proofing toxic loans = what this bailout is meant to do.


Banks buying other banks just means the toxic loans are shifting from one bank to another. It doesn't remove the toxicity from the banking system.

Even if you were right, the whole point of giving money to banks instead of buying up their toxic loans was that they concluded the latter was not effective.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

TheRealMafoo on 28 October 2008

Akuma, you were for this the entire time. Why against it now?

As for this story, it's a none issue. It's the result of the Fed being stupid.

They summoned the CEOs of the top nine banks to Washington, and told each one that they are going to take 25B each, even if they don't need the money. They did not want to telegraph to the US people which banks were in trouble, so they made them all take it.

Chase was not in trouble. They are giving out loans, and have been all along. So, they took the money, and are doing something else with it.

This is a non-story.

P.S. I was adamantly against this from the start. Stupid idea.



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 28 October 2008
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Welfare for the rich confirmed. We spend about $30 billion a year on welfare for the poor, but the average "welfare" for the rich is almost triple that. Yet you don't hear Republicans complaining about that do you.

Weren't the republicans the ones who voted against the Bailout in the first place stating that there wasn't enough regulations and checks on it... and that some of them were just completly against welfare of any kind?

I'm pretty sure that was the house republicans who did that.


Either way... where's the oversight?  This is the difference between regulation and oversight.  The congress could eaisly block this from happening and demand the money back... yet.

Bush was the one who proposed it.

And there isn't regulation or oversight as far as I can tell.

 

hahahahahahahaha

It's Bush's fault....

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

You argue for days about how this is the right thing to do, and then when Government fucks up (like they always do), you blame Bush and not every Democrat who was for this (including yourself). Classic. Soon, no one will be left to blame but the people you wanted in office.

My guess though, is you will ride that "result of the Bush policies" for at least the next few years.

 



akuma587 on 28 October 2008
TheRealMafoo said:

Akuma, you were for this the entire time. Why against it now?

As for this story, it's a none issue. It's the result of the Fed being stupid.

They summoned the CEOs of the top nine banks to Washington, and told each one that they are going to take 25B each, even if they don't need the money. They did not want to telegraph to the US people which banks were in trouble, so they made them all take it.

Chase was not in trouble. They are giving out loans, and have been all along. So, they took the money, and are doing something else with it.

This is a non-story.

P.S. I was adamantly against this from the start. Stupid idea.

Nah, I was never for the bailout in its current form.  Something needed to be done, but giving it to the banks was not necessarily the best way.  I would have given it to the homeowners before I gave it to the banks. 

The problem was liquidity, so I would have told the Fed to loan directly to more banks or strongarm the banks into lending to each other in some way shape or form.  I would have given the banks something, just not $700 billion.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson