Texashiker
Lifer
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
Why did this thread take a political turn?
You can thank Dodd/Franks for the housing mess of 2008.
Giving $800 billion to the banks was just madness.
Ever notice that the vast majority of those that say they have no money for food, always seem to have money for drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, tattoos, cell phones, and more?
The Dodd-Frank act was passed in 2010.
The banks weren't given anything. The US government purchased equity stakes in a lot of banks and in many cases the Treasury made a substantial profit in the end.
The Dodd-Frank act was passed in 2010.
The banks weren't given anything. The US government purchased equity stakes in a lot of banks and in many cases the Treasury made a substantial profit in the end.
More partisan hackery. Bahny Fwank was in wuv with Fwank Waines. Dems were in control the last 2 years of the Bush admin and did nothing even though they were warned. They did nothing before that as well. To put this all on one side, when there's ample proof both sides contributed, shows how willfully clueless you are.
A lot of the banks were forced to take the loans they did not want or need.
All the government did was give away hundreds of billions of dollars to very rich people. That was just wrong.
The U.S. governments bailout of financial firms through the Troubled Asset Relief Program provided taxpayers with higher returns than yields paid on 30- year Treasury bonds -- enough money to fund the Securities and Exchange Commission for the next two decades.
The government has earned $25.2 billion on its investment of $309 billion in banks and insurance companies, an 8.2 percent return over two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
You're contradicting yourself. In one paragraph you say that they were loans, in another you say they were giveaways.
Here are some actual facts & figures from a fairly reliable financial news source:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...2-profit-to-taxpayers-beating-treasuries.html
That is exactly why we should drug test welfare recepients and also we did the right thing in only allowing food stamps to be used on food...
It's so ridiculous that this isn't being done yet. And I think that food stamps can still be traded for drugs or other non-food items.
Doesn't generally work like that. The food stamp recipient takes his card to an unscrupulous merchant. The merchant rings up $400 in qualifying purchase and gives the card holder $200 - and nothing else. The merchant scores an easy 50% profit, the welfare recipient gets $200 to spend on non-approved merchandise like crack or meth. People get busted for that regularly.They can be traded, but it's a hassle where the cardholder has to go buy the food and then trade it for drugs to my understanding. Plenty of people do this, I am sure, but it is much more difficult than cashing a welfare check and walking to the corner to buy drugs.
I will shed a tear onto my medium-rare tenderloin tonight and replenish the lost fluid with a bottle of Caymus Cabernet.....I think I have a '06 downstairs.
It's a damn shame that in the United States of America in the twenty-first century, there are still Americans who can't afford fresh wine!I will shed a tear onto my medium-rare tenderloin tonight and replenish the lost fluid with a bottle of Caymus Cabernet.....I think I have a '06 downstairs.
Bull shit !!!
Fact. GW Bush destroyed the US economy.
Just like he destroyed every business venture he ever entered.
It wasn't a democrat crying into the camera asking for a tax payer bailout.
That is fact!
The sad part... No president will most likely NEVER be able to fix the economy.
Obama has no magic wand. Nor does Mitt.
Believe me. Mitt Romney has no magic wand either.
Only a chain saw and mental relapse.
The dirty deed has been done. And during a republican administration.
It would take the magic of Harry Potter to solve our national ecomic woes.
And what is worse, and seldom mentioned, is not only did the poor policies of the GW Bush era destroy the American economy, it spread over into the world economy.
And THAT damage is not easily solved, if ever to be solved at all.
It is totally and truly amazing what Obama has been able to contain and revive with attempting to maintain what is left of the US economy.
No other president could have done that. Certainlly not a republican. Not as long as they refuse to realize and admit the failures that created that poor economy in the first place.
So the 64 million dollar question...?
Do we continue to struggle along in maintaining a limping economy, slowly on the recovery?
Or do we return to the very same old republican chain saw policies that created this mess?
Or maybe the real question is, can voters be fooled into repeating the failures of the GW years?
High priced wars.
Tax cuts for the wealthy.
More trickle down economics?
Because THAT is the Mitt Romney plan. (for those still not paying attention)
And if we return to those good old GW days... Just how bad will it be four years from now?
That is the scary part of the question...
No, no president in the far future can undo the tragic wounds inflicted after eight years of self destruction.
Obama has amazingly been able to keep things fairly stable, for the most part.
But that stability is paper thin. Extremely delicate. Like a tight long thin string.
Dropping an elephant on that thin string tightrope will bring us all crashing down to our collective demise.
But lets just wait and see the intelligence voters still maintain come this November.