actually, if you do more than pick out one sentence out of what i posted you can see that the central theme of the articles is that the stimulus package which you support failed on several levels.
reading this poll makes me feel not so alone here in the land of the insane. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...d_stimulus_and_using_bailout_funds_for_states Thirty-six percent (36%) of voters believe the first stimulus plan passed in February has helped the U.S. economy, but 34% say it has hurt the economy. By a 59% to 24% margin, voters believe that an increase in government spending will hurt the economy. In fact, 51% of voters say more jobs would be created if the remaining spending planned in the first stimulus plan was cancelled right away. While 77% of Republicans and 60% of adults not affiliated with either party think bailouts for states are a bad idea, Democrats are much more narrowly divided on the question. Fifty percent (50%) of Democrats favor passage of another stimulus package, but 85% of Republicans and 52% of unaffiliateds are opposed.
Wow, so Neil Barofsky, the TARP IG has come to this conclusion? A bit out of his jurisdiction. Considering that you can't tell the difference between a stimulus package and the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and the current proposed legislation on regulatory reform, I'm not that inclined to give credibility to your assessment. Anyway, please read Neil Barofsky's report here. http://www.sigtarp.gov/reports/congress/2010/January2010_Quarterly_Report_to_Congress.pdf Tablign the fact that he didn't testify about anything you are talking about, and the fact that it's not really his job nor does he have the expertise to do so - he specifically endorses the measures you now scorn as "ringing hollow" I dont even know what you're arguing anymore, but it's not helping your cause.
Dude, now that you are whining about something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what you were initially whining about , i can tell you that it's pretty irrelevant whether or not a bunch of r****ds from a phone poll say that they don't believe in something when they have absolutely no basis on which to make that judgment. Who's the guy who has the graphic about the polls? this is one of those situations where it's neede.
so you are dismissing what he says? why are you more qualified to speak to this than he is? its the tarp inspector general's assessment, but i guess you know better. and are the TARP and the stimulus package the same thing? i was under the impression that they were not. he testified that the TARP program is a failure and that nothing has changed - we are still in the same situation we were in when we got into this mess. as far as 'ringing hollow', yes obama's recent tough talk 'rings hollow' - where was the rhetoric last year? methinks it is just a response to the massachusetts election and voter discontent. its damage control. and speaking of 'ringing hollow', another thing that 'rings hollow' is yours and others claims that we would have faced certain economic collapse if we didnt have all these bailouts/stimulus packages. you cant prove either way what the outcome would have been and to claim otherwise is just fear-mongering. and considering that the people who got us into this mess thru their own malfeasance and greed were the ones saying that it would be armageddon if they didnt get bailed out, im not inclined to automatically believe them. i think that is your own fault - but i would be confused too if i was constantly going around arguing w/ people about things they never even said.
Uh, because he is the inspector general for the troubled asset relief program - that has absolutely nothing - ZERO - to do with forecasting macroeconomic growth to do with the Reinvestment & Recovery act of 2009, and has made no attempt to do so. You're the guy who is claiming that they are. The stimulus package is not relevant to this conversation - I don't know how much more clear I need to make it for you. Yes and he testified that we need the kind of reform that you are now b****ing about - though you haven't really specified why you are b****ing about. We've established this a number of posts ago. Why don't you just drop the rhetoric about ringing hollow and say whether or not you support the Volcker plan. I know that your entire expertise in this matter consists of some frantic googling of "Barofsky" yesterday PM - but that really is the main issue here I mean either we pass the regulatory reform or not. Volcker plan and/or bank tax - yes or no? If no, what mode of financial regulatory reform do you propose? I can't figure out what your saying - thus far you seem to be very, very, very confused. Why don't you just answer the question above? It's pretty simple and pretty clear. Shouldn't be cause for too much confusion. No - I reserve that distinction for people who attempt to talk knowledgeably about something that they have no background to speak about. Such as random morons on a phone poll effectively trying to predict what unemployment and GDP growth would have been would have been with or without stimulus spending off the top of their heads...predicting the multiplier effect on GDP data is a pretty complex endeavor, one that you can't jsut get some cashier from omaha to answer in a phone poll. ...you might as well take a phone poll of people asking whether or not the Higgs Boson exists and then citing that as evidence. or another example, in this thread, you whining about the Volcker plan (apparently?) without even knowing what it is. Or claiming that TARP cost the government trillions when the net cost is a mere fraction of that. Read up or shut up.
I can sympathize as in principal I hated TARP but I didn't see any better solution being proposed. Do you think there was a better solution or what do you think would've happened if we never had TARP?
where exactly did i make this claim? where exactly did i b**** about reforms? i "b****ed", as you put it, about obama only now talking tough, after the banks have already gotten everything they wanted. i "b****ed", as you put it, about obama's recent rhetoric being too little, too late and "ringing hollow". this whole exchange is pretty funny actually - the last 4 pages of back and forth are based off of one sentence i made at the end of a rant regarding republican hypocrisy. i expressed an 'opinion' that obama's tough talk on the bank is about a year too late and for some reason it really got yours and other posters panties in a wad. you have taken a general statement i made and tried to fit it into these little side arguments that i was never engaging in in the first place. that is what you do though, so no surprise. im sorry i criticized your dear precious. i realize that many obama supporters, like many bush supporters, get very defensive when you dare say something unnice about him. in the future i will try to be more careful. if that is the plan that requires banks to not take tarp money and invest it in wall street and continue playing the exact same game that got us into this mess in the first place, than yes i support it. it would have been nice if this plan was in place to begin with. and sorry i left you hanging there on the "volker plan" - i never brought it up so i didnt realize my opinion on it was so important to you. i said the phrase 'ringing hollow' once and it is you who got stuck on it. for some reason it really seemed to bother you. im starting to wonder if maybe you weren't molested as a kid and whenever your uncle or whomever was about to climax he starting crying "ringing hollow! ringing hollow!". if thats the case im sorry - i dont want to bring back any bad childhood memories so i will drop it if you do too...fair enough? again, it is you who are very, very confused, but i would be too if i was constantly going around trying to argue w/ people about stuff they never said. i did answer it above. and it was the first time you asked me directly so why are you so antsy about it? you are acting like im trying to avoid your question when you never asked it in the first place. wrong again - i never brought up the volcker plan. you did. i never initially said anything about tarp either - i was speaking to the total bailout/stimulus packages that happened under both bush and obama. as for the last part, i suggest you follow your own advice there slick.
i dont know what would have happened if we didnt have tarp, and i dont think anyone can say with certainty. just like nobody can say with certainty that w/out the bailouts the economy would have collapsed. but the fact that we now have reports coming out saying tarp was ineffective. the banks took the money and reinvested it back in wall st. the excessive bonuses continued. back to sam's little doctor analogy. its like if the doctor saves the life of the fat smoker who just had a heart attack and then on the way out the door not only tells him to keep smoking and eating fast food, but gives him a carton of cigs and a gift certificate to mcdonalds. nothing changed. the things that got us to where we were in the first place were allowed to continue and again, my whole point in my initial comment that sparked this whole kerfluffle was that obama's tough talk, while welcome, is too little too late. but its humbling to know that one little sentence can derail a thread to this degree - powerful stuff, it is.
True but given what happened when Lehman Bros went down it seems very likely that if other banks were to fail we were going to be facing a major crisis. I don't think TARP was meant to do anything about ecessive bonuses or keep them from investing in Wall Street. My understanding of TARP was that it was meant to help keep banks that were failing liquid while also reassuring the banks and the market that lending would continue and there wouldn't be a credit crunch. I agree that there was a failure among regulators and Congress to prevent the problems from occuring that said we were in a crisis. If you see someone drowning you still throw him a life preserver even if you hadn't stopped him from jumping in the water in the first place.
Neither comments bother be and i find them slightly amusing. The difference is one is a slang term and the other is used to make a crack by comparing them to disabled people. I guess that is fine if you feel disabled people are inferior and are freely subjected to be used as ridicule. Many still use the term r****d as an insult, just as many used racial terms openly 50 years ago as an insult to others.
Two points: 1. Obama has been talking about financial reform for the last year, going back to the campaign. He said it was the next big thing after health care reform, and lo and behold, it's now the next big thing after health care reform. His entire support for TARP was predicated on it being a two-step process: the emergency rescue of the banks (dealing with the heart attack) and then reforming the system once things calmed down (ie, now). You don't try to reform the system until you're out of the emergency mode or you're going to create more problems. 2. What exactly did the banks get? They got huge loans, paid back with interest at net rates similar to credit cards (15-20% annualized)? How is that a huge boost for banks? Yes, they got rescued at a profit to taxpayers if you take out the auto bailouts (not bank related) and the non-banks like Fannie, Freddie, and AIG to some extent. All the banks that were saved had to pay a steep price for it. Unnice is not the same as inaccurate.
At the top of the page. The central theme of the articles about testimony on the Troubled Asset Relief Program of 2008 is that the ARRA of 2009 "failed on several levels"? It is not. They are two different things. Sigh...and you're doing it again.
bipartisanship works Senate unanimously moves to reverse ‘Fetterman Rule’ — restoring formal dress code after massive blowback https://nypost.com/2023/09/27/senat...ing-formal-dress-code-after-massive-blowback/
