RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird.

RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/5/2016 10:07:46 AM)
quote: Tarp was passed under bush. And spent under obama. It was Obama's treasury secretaries that bailed out the banks. No, that was Hank Paulson, under Bush. It doesn't matter, the law was passed and presidents dont get a choice on spending money that is earmarked. Geithner did the rest under Obama, but as I said, no choice on it.

Phydeaux -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/5/2016 11:10:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: Tarp was passed under bush. And spent under obama. It was Obama's treasury secretaries that bailed out the banks. No, that was Hank Paulson, under Bush. It doesn't matter, the law was passed and presidents dont get a choice on spending money that is earmarked. Geithner did the rest under Obama, but as I said, no choice on it. Wrong as usual. Spent at the discretion of the Treasury department. As confirmed here: https://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/budget-in-brief/Documents/SIGTARP%20FY11%20508.pdf And if you look here: https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list you can see the dates of most of the bailouts occured well into Obama's tenure.

mnottertail -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/5/2016 11:46:32 AM)
LOL. What manner of horseshit are you posting now? Wrong as usual. The Special Inspector General (oversight) budget for TARP is not TARP spending we are talking about. (link one) If you mean the payback and dividend transactions fall under the Obamas admin in your second link. You would be right.

Phydeaux -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/5/2016 1:24:11 PM)
Nor am I talking about the Special Inspector budget. Read the article. Or look - here's another: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income Or another: https://business.cch.com/bankingFinance/focus/News/TARPwhitepaper.pdf here let me quote: The legislation provided the Treasury Department with funds of up to $700 billion to purchase, manage and sell assets held by financial institutions considered to be "troubled" or "toxic." TARP The central feature of EESA was TARP, established by the Treasury Secretary "in accordance with [EESA] and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary." TARP was slated to be run under the Treasury's Office of Financial Stability. In its original form, TARP, under Sec. 101 of the EESA, would purchase "troubled assets" from financial institutions. This purchase authority was to end on Dec. 31, 2009. A "troubled asset" was defined by EESA as residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages. To qualify as a troubled asset, any mortgage, security, obligation or other instrument had to have been originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008. In addition, the Treasury Secretary had to make a determination that the purchase of the asset would promote financial market stability. Other financial instruments could be considered to be troubled assets if the Secretary determined that their purchase was necessary to promote financial market stability. This determination could only be made after consulting with the Fed chairman and providing the determination in writing to the House Financial Services Committee and Senate Banking Committee. Specific Provisions Under EESA Sec. 101 (c), the Treasury Secretary was to take actions that it deemed necessary to facilitate TARP. For example, the Secretary would be given flexibility to establish vehicles to purchase, hold and sell troubled assets so as to minimize the cost of TARP to taxpayers. The protection of taxpayers' interest was also one of the factors that the Secretary was required to take into consideration when exercising the authorities granted in the EESA. Other factors that the Secretary had to consider under Sec. 103 included: z keeping families in their homes; z using funds efficiently in purchasing troubled assets; and z ensuring that all financial institutions were eligible to participate in TARP. Once the Secretary established TARP, Sec. 102 of the EESA required the Secretary to establish a program to insure troubled assets originated or issued prior to March 14, 2008. This guarantee included mortgage-backed securities. This guarantee authority was to end on Dec. 31, 2009. When the Secretary acquired a troubled asset, Sec. 106 of the EESA provided the Secretary with a number of powers to administer those troubled assets. More specifically, Sec. 106 allowed the Secretary to: z exercise any rights received in connection with the troubled assets; z have the authority to manage the troubled assets, including revenues and portfolio risks; and z sell any of the troubled assets. Any revenues realized from a sale of troubled assets were to be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt. In order to provide funding for the bailout package, Sec. 122 of EESA raised the statutory limit on the public debt to $11.315 trillion.

mnottertail -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/5/2016 2:05:08 PM)
oh, hold on, quit with the asswipe. lets go to the CBO (and learn what discretionary means in the budget.) ther mandatory spending averaged 3.7 percent of GDP from the mid-1970s through the early 1980s. It was generally lower from the mid-1980s to 2008, averaging 2.5 percent of GDP, with some fluctuations. In 2009, however, other mandatory spending nearly doubled to 5.1 percent of GDP because of the financial crisis and recession and the federal government’s response to them. In particular, spending increased sharply for unemployment benefits and federal nutrition programs, and additional outlays were recorded for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), deposit insurance, and payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (two institutions, now under government conservatorship, that facilitate the flow of funding for home loans). Some of that spending proved temporary, and net outlays for the TARP and for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have turned out to be noticeably lower than originally recorded in 2009. As a result, total other mandatory spending declined to an average of 3.4 percent of GDP over the 2010–2012 period. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44591

Phydeaux -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/5/2016 8:32:56 PM)
Sigh - so now you're up to second grade level. Something I posted on back when we were having the debates on entitlement spending being 52% of the federal budget. Were we talking about discretionary spending your comment would be inline. However, we are not. We are talking about the discretion to spend the money - and the procedures by which to do so were at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. Look man, this is a matter of public record. Go look it up. Around Nov/Dec the SoT changed the procedure s to make loans directly to banks. Also like I said - the propublica link lists all the funds allocated under tarp - and almost all of them are distributed under obama.

Edwird -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/5/2016 11:52:47 PM)
"You claiming the sky is purple doesn't change the facts. Soros made a huge bet that the BOE coudl not sustain the pound. That market forces were going to exhaust BOE reserves. Soros was right." It's your intake of hallucinogens, and only that, in whatever form, that could make anther's sky 'purple,' and nothing else. Sorry that facts so intrude upon your world, entertaining as it is (to yourself, in any event). That along with your gambit that I am a first grade reader, when the proper way to put it would be "your claiming" rather than what you learned; "you claiming" that (as it seems) got you a passing grade in Jr. High "Basic English," is entertaining, to be sure. Again, what you say about Soros' gamble re the BOE is true, I didn't dispute that, I was just pointing out the fact that there were a lot of others alongside wanting to take that same bet, but lacking the conviction to follow through, on their own. Waiting on someone else to jump first. It's not like it was a 'secret' about the pound, the financial/business columns had been all over it for weeks, looking at those who were shorting. And no, I'm sure as fuck not going to explain any of that to someone like you, given the lack of capacity for understanding the least of it to begin with. As example: "That market forces were going to exhaust BOE reserves. Soros was right." So there you are, claiming irresistible market (meaning many) forces, but then that Soros did it all by himself ... I bet you were class president of your (or is that "you") Basic Jr. High English class. BTW, what "list" are you talking about? I didn't see any list, of whatever form, within the post I responded to. So then, what have you to say about how Goldman Sachs pulled a stunt on the Euro folks in doing an interest rate swap with the Greeks that turned their shit bricks debt into gold bricks just before they were up for nomination to joining the Euro currency? Yeah, OK, I thought not, not a clue, etc. "The trend toward free market reforms ... " Oh crap, THAT again? I think that I may have overestimated your capacities. Actually, there is no question about your 'capacities' now, if ever there was in the first place. I already pointed out the disaster in Chile, under Pinochet, in hiring a Friedman acolyte (which, understandably, you have no response to). But aside from that, Adam Smith only used that term ONCE, by way of saying "in a free and open market." which the US is now SO far away from. It was Friedman, Greenspan, et al. that came up with the singular term "free market," DON'T blame that unholy crap on Adam Smith. And if you actually read anything he wrote, he was much more for the worker than the employer, but he was merely trying to explain to the rest of us the employer's point of view. And his use of "free and open market" was directed towards a government who painted favors upon supporters, granting monopoly power (anti-free market as it gets) to the favored, overrun by the "nobility," -just like the US in the past 35 years-. And since you (and may others) missed out on it, there is no better expression of "free market" gone rogue but that the US government has been run by corporations for decades. Such a warm and fuzzy "free" market it is, if you have tons of cash. But after all that, you are welcome to explain the the rest of us how somebody (or whatever group) who buys -defaulted bonds- are "risk averse," and need 'protection' thereby (from whatever corrupted US circuit court) , expounding on that claim you asserted in the post I responded to. Did anybody put a gun to somebody's head to force the "loan" in the first place? Or was it a highly calculated 'risk,' with actually little risk involved? If it's all about truly "free market," who needs a fucking court? Get with the program!

MrRodgers -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/6/2016 12:20:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux We agree on one thing. Iceland didn't bailout the banks. And Obama shouldn't have. The only way to stop privatizing profit and socializing risk is to let businesses go bankrupt -whether its GM or citibank. There is no question that we agree on this but I always try my best to be objective and in doing so, have intellectually indicted many on most sides but all of this was occurring during the 4th quarter of 2008 and TARP was passed and signed into law months before Obama was even inaugurated. Tarp was passed under bush. And spent under obama. It was Obama's treasury secretaries that bailed out the banks. quote: is that then the left wants tough regulations and enforcement to stop this shit...the right doesn't. Ridiculous. No republican wants spoiled meat. Corrupted scales. Illegal dumping. Republicans don't want ineffective laws. They don't overly burdensome laws: EPA wetlands, anyone? They don't want laws infringing guaranteed constitutional rights. Gun laws, for example. Generally, republicans want laws as close to the people as possible. State minimum wages, not federal minimum wage. With little to raise a distinction, I'll concede most of that but the repubs don't want to regulate wall street, don't want higher capital requirements, don't want a sales tax (so-called transaction tax that the public pays on many things) and claim it hurts innovation, when for bankers, innovation is almost always just another piece of shit paper to speculate on and too often...with other people's money. I am willing to bet that the founding fathers would agree with me here too. In a free country, we can't abolish paper trading but also because that kind of trading investment (allocation of capital) represents the least benefit to the balance of the economy, i.e., industrial, technological investment and studies have shown that mere financial profits are drawing money away from the fortune 500's market expansion, R & D and industrial expansion and job creation...that [it] should be taxed much heavier as a disincentive. A federal minimum wage is more than justified by the people as a nation directing their congress to create one decent enough for a low class survival under the rationale that there is no maximum or higher tax rate on higher profit and that morally and directly as a result, the economy over all should provide a minimum under which no person (labor) could fall. We've seen in the past, and for centuries, the profit motive actually pay labor...essentially almost nothing and there are no guarantees that there is always enough demand for labor, that the market will provide a minimum.

Edwird -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/6/2016 1:10:31 AM)
Oh man, I just read this; "Republicans don't want ineffective laws." Mr. dog food, at it again That is just drop-jaw idiocracy, at its 'finest.' Reagan made it a point that he was going to make the government as -ineffective- as possible, by every law or any regulation regarding corporations. High ranking corporate executives have had from that point on a "free and open market" into every working aspect of regulation, even as denuded as it was to begin with. No one can disagree, though, that he (Regan, but especially his scared-as-shit backers, too) had every intention of locking up as many black teenagers as possible. It was his campaign point; "protection" of those that have, but it was unbelievable to me at the time the effort expended upon those who were never a threat. But that's what got him elected. Sorry you missed out on all the hoo hah on that very point. The media absolutely loved it, for the record. Not even going to ask what cave you were living in at the time, or apparently still are. You don't have a clue.

Edwird -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/6/2016 2:56:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: Tarp was passed under bush. And spent under obama. It was Obama's treasury secretaries that bailed out the banks. No, that was Hank Paulson, under Bush. It doesn't matter, the law was passed and presidents dont get a choice on spending money that is earmarked. Geithner did the rest under Obama, but as I said, no choice on it. Wrong as usual. Spent at the discretion of the Treasury department. As confirmed here: https://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/budget-in-brief/Documents/SIGTARP%20FY11%20508.pdf And if you look here: https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list you can see the dates of most of the bailouts occured well into Obama's tenure. Right. So this is yet another "The Butler Did It" scenario. Cause the problem, invite all the wackos you can think of to the party, puke voluminously all over the expensive carpet (along with your 'friends'), then blame it on the guy who cleans up after the frat party gone deranged. That is SO republican. Karl Rove is the biggest treasoner in history (well, behind Dick Cheney, but ...), they both blew cover for an expensively trained deep CIA operative.Treason. Oh wait, I mean, behind Reagan (sold arms to a nation that held American hostages for 444 days, imported cocaine). Treason. No, I mean behind Bush I (sold Anthrax to Iraq). Treason. No, I mean except for Donny "gonna call in my markers' Rumsfeld, except for ... You want a 'list,' THERE'S yer effing list. Get a clue, Jack. BTW, AIG 'got paid' for the worst bet in history under Bush II's tenure, and it was the Reagan appointee, Greenspan, who was the cause of the mess as much as anybody, domestic financial terrorist as he was.

Edwird -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/6/2016 4:12:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: Tarp was passed under bush. And spent under obama. It was Obama's treasury secretaries that bailed out the banks. No, that was Hank Paulson, under Bush. It doesn't matter, the law was passed and presidents dont get a choice on spending money that is earmarked. Geithner did the rest under Obama, but as I said, no choice on it. Wrong as usual. Spent at the discretion of the Treasury department. As confirmed here: https://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/budget-in-brief/Documents/SIGTARP%20FY11%20508.pdf And if you look here: https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list you can see the dates of most of the bailouts occured well into Obama's tenure. Right. So this is yet another "The Butler Did It" scenario. Cause the problem, invite all the wackos you can think of to the party, puke voluminously all over the expensive carpet (along with your 'friends'), then blame it on the guy who cleans up after the frat party gone deranged. That is SO republican. Karl Rove is the biggest treasoner in history (well, behind Dick Cheney, but ...), they both blew cover for an expensively trained deep CIA operative. Treason, clear and plain. Oh wait, I mean, behind Reagan (sold arms to a nation that held American hostages for 444 days, imported cocaine). Treason, of the highest order. No, I mean behind Bush I (sold Anthrax to Iraq). Treason., in any true meaning. No, I mean except for Donny "gonna call in my markers' Rumsfeld, except for ... You want a 'list,' THERE'S yer effing list. Get a clue, Jack. BTW, AIG 'got paid' for the worst bet in history under Bush II's tenure, and it was the Reagan appointee, Greenspan, who was the cause of the mess as much as anybody, domestic financial terrorist as he was. That was the whole reason Reagan hired his 'economic mentor' in the first place, after he got done spiting in Volker's face when he was trying to clean up the inflation mess, Reagan immediately spending billions on 'defense' all the while, and bailing out his buddies in all those S&L scams (party time!) , thanks be praised 'the Protestant "work ethic" for deregulation and inherent bailouts therein ... That muther fucker couldn't die fast enough for me. Along with all those other "Protestannt Work 'ethic'" assholes. (The sooner they can off themselves from the planet, the better for society, and better for evolution.) Calvinism, after all, was all about how much you could steal from others, as the only proof of your worthiness to God (by their wholly convenient contemporaneous estimation), and by God don't a lot of people have THAT down pat. The sort of thing that plays across generations. "The 'producers,' so we are told? Oh STOPPP! You're KILLING me!

mnottertail -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/6/2016 5:12:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Sigh - so now you're up to second grade level. Something I posted on back when we were having the debates on entitlement spending being 52% of the federal budget. Were we talking about discretionary spending your comment would be inline. However, we are not. We are talking about the discretion to spend the money - and the procedures by which to do so were at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. Look man, this is a matter of public record. Go look it up. Around Nov/Dec the SoT changed the procedure s to make loans directly to banks. Also like I said - the propublica link lists all the funds allocated under tarp - and almost all of them are distributed under obama. Sigh. So now you are backtracking on your asswipe. But pretending you arent. The money (and Paulson had to go down to congress and beg twice, with Bernanke) was gotten in the W disaster, and allocated, and the money going to the banks and wallstreet for loans (that never occurred) and bonuses which did occur, and where most of the money went was Paulson. The discretion of where it could be parceled was SoT (to some modicum of degree) , but the spending of it was not. It was in the Obama administration that the bailouts were rigged to have to pay back instead of give out for bonuses. And thats why it cost us way way less.

MrRodgers -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/6/2016 10:41:51 AM)
As I've said will repeat. GWB was the brother-in-law your wife begged you take in for just a couple of months until he gets back on his feet. Then he totals your car and burns the house down and your wife blames you for having to take the bus everywhere and moving the family into an apt.

WhoreMods -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/6/2016 10:48:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers As I've said will repeat. GWB was the brother-in-law your wife begged you take in for just a couple of months until he gets back on his feet. Then he totals your car and burns the house down and your wife blames you for having to take the bus everywhere and moving the family into an apt. I love that. That absolutely nails it. Kudos, sir!

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875