Hey 8th!

[TAFBSooner]

Why Jaime Dimon isn't wearing orange today:

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/11/its_not_just_fox_news_how_liberal_apologists_torpe doed_change_helped_make_the_democrats_safe_for_wal l_street/

[FaninAma]

Why Jaime Dimon isn't wearing orange today:http://www.salon.com/2015/01/11/its_not_just_fox_news_how_liberal_apologists_torpe doed_change_helped_make_the_democrats_safe_for_wal l_street/This is exactly the reason I would take the time to listen to what Elizabeth Warren had to say. Obama didn't carry water for the Big Banks and Wall Street.....he constructed a pipeline and had it pumped in to the tune of trillions of dollars. More Republicans opposed the bailout than Democrats in Congress back in '08.

[rock on sooner]

This is exactly the reason I would take the time to listen to what Elizabeth Warren had to say. Obama didn't carry water for the Big Banks and Wall Street.....he constructed a pipeline and had it pumped in to the tune of trillions of dollars. More Republicans opposed the bailout than Democrats in Congress back in '08.

Wow! A Pub and Warren in the same sentence...favorably at that!!! Right on!:welcoming:

[Turd_Ferguson]

Wow! A Pub and Warren in the same sentence...favorably at that!!! Right on!:welcoming:

Wow! A lib making no sense...Right on!:D

[rock on sooner]

Wow! A lib making no sense...Right on!:D

Heh...

[TAFBSooner]

This is exactly the reason I would take the time to listen to what Elizabeth Warren had to say. Obama didn't carry water for the Big Banks and Wall Street.....he constructed a pipeline and had it pumped in to the tune of trillions of dollars. More Republicans opposed the bailout than Democrats in Congress back in '08.

The bailout itself wasn't the worst part - it's the fact he gave them the bailout and didn't impose any consequences (jail time, breaking up the biggest banks and investment firms, or imposition of serious regulation) in the bargain.

[Turd_Ferguson]

The bailout itself wasn't the worst part - it's the fact he gave them the bailout and didn't impose any consequences (jail time, breaking up the biggest banks and investment firms, or imposition of serious regulation) in the bargain.

Then how the **** was it a bargain?

[Sooner8th]

This is exactly the reason I would take the time to listen to what Elizabeth Warren had to say. Obama didn't carry water for the Big Banks and Wall Street.....he constructed a pipeline and had it pumped in to the tune of trillions of dollars. More Republicans opposed the bailout than Democrats in Congress back in '08.
The bailout itself wasn't the worst part - it's the fact he gave them the bailout and didn't impose any consequences (jail time, breaking up the biggest banks and investment firms, or imposition of serious regulation) in the bargain.HE gave them the bailouts? REALLY? This is where I call you an inbred, dumbass, hillbilly, lemming. It was GEORGE W. BUSH who bailed out the banks. Not BARACK OBAMA. Get your facts straight.

[olevetonahill]

Goddamn it Yall had to wake him up
http://www.pixielake.com/Pixies/troll.jpg

[TAFBSooner]

HE gave them the bailouts? REALLY? This is where I call you an inbred, dumbass, hillbilly, lemming. It was GEORGE W. BUSH who bailed out the banks. Not BARACK OBAMA. Get your facts straight.

A review of the bidding, since it has been six years:

TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) aka bank bailout. Signed into law by George W. Bush, 3 October 2008. Disbursed $431 billion, net cost $24 billion.

GM bailout. 1 June 2009

Chrysler bailout. 31 May 2009

ARRA (stimulus) government spending, tax incentives, expansion of unemployment. Signed into law by Barack Obama, 17 February 2009. $787 billion.

8th is right that Bush gave the banks their bailout. Obama is in charge of the Justice Department, which has failed, over those aforementioned six years, to prosecute the banks and banksters for their role in crashing the economy. Obama told the banksters that only he was standing between them and the pitchforks, and damned if he hasn’t done that very, very well.

8th: Obama is gone in 23 months or so. In 2016, who’s your candidate – Hillary, Warren, or other? And yes I know Warren claims she isn’t running – the question is which one represents your favorite flavor of Democrat: the corporate “New” Democrats, or the liberal Democrats?

[Sooner8th]

A review of the bidding, since it has been six years:TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) aka bank bailout. Signed into law by George W. Bush, 3 October 2008. Disbursed $431 billion, net cost $24 billion.GM bailout. 1 June 2009Chrysler bailout. 31 May 2009ARRA (stimulus) government spending, tax incentives, expansion of unemployment. Signed into law by Barack Obama, 17 February 2009. $787 billion.8th is right that Bush gave the banks their bailout. Obama is in charge of the Justice Department, which has failed, over those aforementioned six years, to prosecute the banks and banksters for their role in crashing the economy. Obama told the banksters that only he was standing between them and the pitchforks, and damned if he hasn’t done that very, very well.8th: Obama is gone in 23 months or so. In 2016, who’s your candidate – Hillary, Warren, or other? And yes I know Warren claims she isn’t running – the question is which one represents your favorite flavor of Democrat: the corporate “New” Democrats, or the liberal Democrats?What is your point? I put BUSH BAILED OUT THE BANKS, so thank you for confirming that. So you agree - GEORGE W. BUSH BAILED OUT THE BANKS. As for the auto loans - GEORGE W. BUSH STARTED THEM On December 19, 2008, a week after Republicans in the Senate had killed a bailout bill proposed by Democrats, saying it didn’t impose big enough wage cuts on the U.A.W., Bush unilaterally agreed to lend $17.4 billion of taxpayers’ money to General Motors and Chrysler, of which $13.4 billion was to be extended immediately. He had to twist the law to get the money. Deprived of congressional funding, he diverted cash from the loathed TARP program, which Congress had already passed, but which was supposed to be restricted to rescuing the banks. “I didn’t want there to twenty-one-per-cent unemployment,” he said to a meeting of the National Automobile Dealers Association in Las Vegas last month, explaining why he acted as he did. “I didn’t want history to look back and say, ‘Bush could have done something but chose not to do it.’ ”Obama, who in December, 2008, was the President-elect, publicly supported Bush’s move, saying it was a “necessary step to avoid a collapse in our auto industry that would have devastating consequences for our economy and our workers.” After taking office six weeks later, Obama put together an auto task force that extended tens of billions more in emergency financing to Detroit over the ensuing months, and also did what appears to have been a pretty good job in restructuring G.M. and selling Chrysler to Fiat.Obama deserves a lot of credit for finishing the job that Bush and his Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, had started. He stood with the auto companies, which were victims of extraordinary circumstances beyond their control. As the price of the bailout, he also insisted on some changes at G.M., including the installation of new leadership and the elimination of several brands. Let me get straight - democrats hated business and at the same time they are in the back pockets of wall street? Which is it?

[Sooner8th]

A review of the bidding, since it has been six years:TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) aka bank bailout. Signed into law by George W. Bush, 3 October 2008. Disbursed $431 billion, net cost $24 billion.Let's get some facts about TARP straight. First - signed into law by dubya for $700 billion, but obama got the "blame" for it. Second - OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS CUT THE PROGRAM TO $431 BILLION, thank you president obama and democrats. GGGEEEZZZZZ more conservative republican spending cut by democrats. Third - it actually MADE MONEY around $15 billion. To summarize conservatives blame obama for a bailout bush instituted, they complained to no end about the cost of the program, it made money and finally not bailing out financial institutions would have put us into a depression - but that's ok since you would be sticking to your PRINCIPALS. The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By October 11, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $24 billion.[1] This is significantly less than the government's cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s but does not include the cost of other "bailout" programs (such as the Federal Reserve's Maiden Lane Transactions and the Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The cost of the former crisis amounted to 3.2 percent of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the latter crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1 percent.[2] While it was once feared the government would be holding companies like GM, AIG and Citigroup for several years, it was reported in April 2010 that those companies are preparing to buy back the Treasury's stake and emerge from TARP within a year.[2] On December 19, 2014 the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining holdings of Ally Financial, essentially ending the program. TARP revenue has totaled $441.7 billion on $426.4 billion invested.[3]

[SoonerorLater]

^^^^^^^^^^^ Troll Alert ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Another copy and paste plagiarized hack by this lowlife troll.

[Sooner8th]

^^^^^^^^^^^ Troll Alert ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Another copy and paste plagiarized hack by this lowlife troll.Not plagiarized and facts are facts dumbass hillbilly.

[SoonerorLater]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Troll Alert ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Lying, plagiarizing, copy and paste right from Wikipedia troll

-------------------
"The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By October 11, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $24 billion.[1] This is significantly less than the government's cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s but does not include the cost of other "bailout" programs (such as the Federal Reserve's Maiden Lane Transactions and the Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The cost of the former crisis amounted to 3.2 percent of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the latter crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1 percent.[2] While it was once feared the government would be holding companies like GM, AIG and Citigroup for several years, it was reported in April 2010 that those companies are preparing to buy back the Treasury's stake and emerge from TARP within a year.[2] On December 19, 2014 the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining holdings of Ally Financial, essentially ending the program. TARP revenue has totaled $441.7 billion on $426.4 billion invested"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

[Sooner8th]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Troll Alert ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Lying, plagiarizing, copy and paste right from Wikipedia troll-------------------"The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By October 11, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $24 billion.[1] This is significantly less than the government's cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s but does not include the cost of other "bailout" programs (such as the Federal Reserve's Maiden Lane Transactions and the Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The cost of the former crisis amounted to 3.2 percent of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the latter crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1 percent.[2] While it was once feared the government would be holding companies like GM, AIG and Citigroup for several years, it was reported in April 2010 that those companies are preparing to buy back the Treasury's stake and emerge from TARP within a year.[2] On December 19, 2014 the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining holdings of Ally Financial, essentially ending the program. TARP revenue has totaled $441.7 billion on $426.4 billion invested"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_ProgramSo what I didn't put the link - big fvcking deal.

[Turd_Ferguson]

So what I didn't put the link - big fvcking deal.

Then you're a plagiarizing, piece of ****, **** stick, mother ****'n yankee ***, **** suck'n, beta male lib...

[TAFBSooner]

What is your point? I put BUSH BAILED OUT THE BANKS, so thank you for confirming that. So you agree - GEORGE W. BUSH BAILED OUT THE BANKS. As for the auto loans - GEORGE W. BUSH STARTED THEM On December 19, 2008, a week after Republicans in the Senate had killed a bailout bill proposed by Democrats, saying it didn’t impose big enough wage cuts on the U.A.W., Bush unilaterally agreed to lend $17.4 billion of taxpayers’ money to General Motors and Chrysler, of which $13.4 billion was to be extended immediately. He had to twist the law to get the money. Deprived of congressional funding, he diverted cash from the loathed TARP program, which Congress had already passed, but which was supposed to be restricted to rescuing the banks. “I didn’t want there to twenty-one-per-cent unemployment,” he said to a meeting of the National Automobile Dealers Association in Las Vegas last month, explaining why he acted as he did. “I didn’t want history to look back and say, ‘Bush could have done something but chose not to do it.’ ”Obama, who in December, 2008, was the President-elect, publicly supported Bush’s move, saying it was a “necessary step to avoid a collapse in our auto industry that would have devastating consequences for our economy and our workers.” After taking office six weeks later, Obama put together an auto task force that extended tens of billions more in emergency financing to Detroit over the ensuing months, and also did what appears to have been a pretty good job in restructuring G.M. and selling Chrysler to Fiat.Obama deserves a lot of credit for finishing the job that Bush and his Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, had started. He stood with the auto companies, which were victims of extraordinary circumstances beyond their control. As the price of the bailout, he also insisted on some changes at G.M., including the installation of new leadership and the elimination of several brands. Let me get straight - democrats hated business and at the same time they are in the back pockets of wall street? Which is it?

My point is: it was up to Obama to impose consequences on too-big-to-fail banks, and he failed at that. Apparently, he never intended to do so. With no consequences, there is nothing to keep the banksters from finding and implementing new variations on the screw job they're perpetrating on the American people.

[TAFBSooner]

Then how the **** was it a bargain?

Let me rephrase:

There were two parts to this particular screw job:

1) There was the bailout itself. There was one main argument in favor of the bailout - many economists believed the economy would implode if the government kept a hands-off approach. There were lots of arguments against.

2) Much worse is the fact that the government didn't impose any consequences, such as jail time, breaking up the biggest banks and investment firms, or imposition of serious regulation. This lack of consequences let the banks carry on almost business as usual.

That is only a "bargain" in the sarcastic sense of the word.

[Sooner8th]

Let me rephrase:There were two parts to this particular screw job:1) There was the bailout itself. There was one main argument in favor of the bailout - many economists believed the economy would implode if the government kept a hands-off approach. There were lots of arguments against.2) Much worse is the fact that the government didn't impose any consequences, such as jail time, breaking up the biggest banks and investment firms, or imposition of serious regulation. This lack of consequences let the banks carry on almost business as usual. That is only a "bargain" in the sarcastic sense of the word.HUH - U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Tuesday that he has given U.S. Attorneys a 90-day deadline to evaluate whether they can bring cases against any individuals for their role in the 2008 financial crisis. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/17/doj-bankers_n_6700234.html