Are you answering yourself now? I would look into different meds

No one really knows what would have happened without the bailout. I think we'd be a bit worse off now, but it probably would have lessened the collapse that I think is coming in the next 10 years.

& the dialogue degenerates into nonsense. thats what you do when you lose. Goodbye.

Haha. That was pretty funny. I bet she didn't expect that.

You were the one answering yourself, is that the dialogue degeneration you are speaking of?

I wouldn't quite call that getting owned but yeah made a fool off. Good share.

Probably would have helped if it were implemented with any control.

But I only posted this thread because it was funny

You know, low emissions and clean coal burning is so incredibly important for the future that it could by itself literally save our american civilization.

So, 2 billion is cheap for R&D that might bring us closer to working clean coal plants. Yes, that plant had it's problems, but we learned a lot from that failure.

Depending on the numbers you wnat to use, and how you do future accounting, we spend more than 2 billion a week on our wars.

http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/...ing_burn_rate/

All our coal plants are aging and obsolete, and the coal infrastucture has to be rebuilt in the next 50 years. Coal is teh one fossil carbon that we have in abundance. That 2 billion spent now could have saved us trillions in the future.

And saved us from the insecurity and economic drain of buying oil from the sovereigns, and funding islam.

Not that you care.

Vend, you started this thread and you are already conflating "bailout" and "stimulus". :1orglaugh

There is no doubt that the US economy and most of the worlds economies would have crashed without the "bailout". That's where your OP started.

I doubt it would have crashed without the "stimulus", but that is a different story and debate.


.

Try getting a degree in computer science or even English like that.

:1orglaugh

Fuck, even PE requires more than that.

If you ever wanted to prove that you never went to college then congrats, you did it
with that post.

I agree, but there have been so many examples of how the money had been wasted by stimulus recipients, like those damn highway signs telling us how our money was being spent

I don't think it would have failed without the stimulus, I remember reading about how Japan did it ten times, and it never really worked, so Obama tried it

Just like USSR tried to take over Afghanistan and failed, so Bush tried it, those things just don't make sense to me

Yeah, I just said that.

But seriously, do you understand what you read and write?? What about the first part of what I pointed out where you conflate two things?

Again, and try and read this slowly.... Your original post and the question directed at the Representative was regarding the bailout.

The stimulus is not the bailout.

When the initial bailout started under Bush, it was shortly after Lehman filed for bankruptcy, which started a domino effect across the credit markets.

The Presidents of other countries were calling the White House stating that they could not get the funds they needed because the world credit markets were frozen. GE, a perfectly healthy company, was calling saying the same thing.

I'm disgusted by these events, but anyone who thinks that without the bailout there was a chance that the credit markets would have magically improved on their own without an intervening collapse is smoking crack.


.

Well, I apologize then for the needlessly snippy "not that..." comment.

The value of that failed plant experiment was that it proved that carbon sequestration is going to be very difficult to do. I may have my plants mixed up, but I think that plant was a success in burning the coal more cleanly, but a failure in controlling the carbon emissions.

However, if it had been a success, it would have been a revolutionary technology, and we could have sold trillions worth of it to other countries.

---

I'm sure the companies and workers who made those road signs would disagree with you.

But I want your side to take power again - because then you will be required to produce jobs, not just do this guerilla well-poisoning from the sidelines.

It's easy to attack what the other guy is doing, harder to actually have to do it.

I despise obama, but your republicans would have done the same things he did. And if you think they also wouldn't have thrown money, you are being intentionally blind.

:1orglaugh

I give you some credit on small ownage.
It wasn't as good as you made it out to be though.

At least this time you had real facts.

:1orglaugh

I know the difference, just hated both of them, not for the idea behind doing it, but for the lame way they were managed and the waste.

Not my republicans, last I checked, I don't own any

The hate that's worked up on both sides is to their benefit , look I have haters that without even reading what I posted, come in this thread and attack what I said, why, because of my hate for the current administration, yet let them find where I'm praising the gop?
Last president I liked was Reagan, he was a conservative that was also a leader, he worked with Tip O'Neil to raise the Social Security tax and hell even Clinton worked with the GOP to overhaul welfare, but can the current POTUS work with the other side? That's the sign of a bad leader

Seems doubtful considering this post where you veered from joshgirls point about bailout/credit to a comment on stimulus -- a complete non sequitur.

It's as if you really conflated the two events.

Can't fault you for that, but it's not a simple issue. It involves Bush, Obama, Congress, Treasury Secretary, FED, the States who received money and mismanaged it, etc.


.

Just a note... Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson and Alan Greenspan are all Republicans too...

No you don't simpleton.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Come on man. Don't get him all confused. His brain can only handle so much.

http://www.myteespot.com/images/Images_d/DSCF9215.jpg

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

.

Really? I thought the banks took the money and still didn't loan it out forcing Obama to try and spend even more money to get things moving.

wig may have different answers but I'll say you are talking about two different kinds of lending.

The bailout stopped the collapse of confidence that was causing short term and overnight lending to "break the buck".

Then, the banks were so frightened by what had just happened, and still so insecure about all their guesses about who still held hidden bad paper, that they played it extra safe and refused to lend to anybody but those who already had money. They worried that that the shareholders might later say "you should have known better", now that the shareholders were alerted to all the shoddy practice.

And that pushed almost all small business off the lending table.

The "invisible hand" of the marketplace at work.

Thats why more-managed economies can beat less-managed economies. The invisible hand is blind, it only reacts, never acts. When reaction can solve a problem the invisible hand works perfectly well. But when you have to act to solve a problem, you have to guide the hand.

Yes, I thinks that's close, although I don't think it was because they all of a sudden realized the banks were not going to loan the money the way they envisioned, but rather they believed that fiscal stimulus was needed along side monetary policy [and bailout].

But I also think you are confusing two issues... there is a difference between injecting capital into the system to stave off systemic credit collapse and the idea that this capital would be lent according to their vision.

As far as I know, the major banks who received capital injections have repaid these loans, and in the case of Citibank, the FED sold it's equity stake for a 12 billion dollar profit.

I have not followed all of the assets acquired by the FED to see if they have completely divested themselves of stakes in the likes of GM and AIG, and I imagine the answer is no; and that taxpayers will not be as lucky in some of these as they were with Citi.

That said, I stand by the statement that without the "bailout" the frozen credit markets would have not recovered on their own (without intervening collapse) and the countries and companies that woke up to find they could not borrow to fund their day-to-day operations would have collapsed as a result. IOW, it would not just have been over leveraged investment banks, an insurance company (AIG) and financial institutions that took a shit.



.

I was typing my response out when you posted this, but I agree.


.

rofl, that dumb bitch.

Hey Vendzilla, if it were not for govt money you wouldnt be afforded the luxury to sit on your ass all day posting bullshit paid for by your social security check. Not to mention if the govt didnt give your daughter a paycheck she would most likely be sucking dick for $20 a pop behind 7-11.

I look at both as a bunch of money the government decided to waste, at least the Bailout was paid back some of it

And I care how?

Every time I see someone that's only contribution to the discussion is to laugh, I think of a drooling idiot sitting in his own feces thinking the world is a beautiful place as long as he gets his meds, have you had yours today?

OK so bailing out wall street & restarting the credit markets & avoiding total economic collapse is a waste of money. I respect most of your posts as you lean to the right as i do, but your performance in this thread is lacking. one sentence replies & telling me to change my meds makes you no better then a troll. I try to believe right leaning people can be intelligent, but your not helping the cause.

Yes. wall street got a lot more bailout then they needed. Problem is, the bush admin stuffed the SEC with incompetent hacks. They were so bad, they investigated madoff numerous times & never busted him.

That, plus the fact that the derivatives mess in the shadow banking system was rocket science that only the wall street brains could explain, the govt was in no position to question what these bankers told them they needed.

It was a messy bailout, but a complete collapse was avoided & that is a good thing.

Just don't forget that Obama's bailout is producing a profit for the government.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/30/news...gram/index.htm

And don't forget that we thought the auto industry was going to collapse but most
have paid back all the money they got in the bailout.

So it's not like Obama spent the money and it went away.
He spent the money and got it all back!

People were too busy bitching about birth certificates to pay attention to what
was really happening.

Bottom line : If the bailout failed it doesn't matter since we got all the money back.
If it worked then jobs and companies were saved. That's a "win win".

I know you have the anti-Obama thing going; but look at the numbers and think
about the truth/facts of what has happened since he was elected.

People who shouted that the bailout would make America broke should shout again
that we made a profit instead. But they want.

Like I said earlier in the thread, the idea was good, the execution sucked balls

Um, the bailout happened in 2008, Barry wasn't the president till 2009. So what you're doing is praising Bush for his work? Just checking!!

i hate all journalists there brainwashing garbage never read it

interesting. given your reply to me was that nobody could prove the stimulus did anything. I pull out some economics, you reply to change my meds. Then WIG points out your confusion, & suddenly, it was a good idea.

i'll leave you to your opinions. good luck.

Bush fucked it up; Obama cleaned it up.

Thank you.

Vendzilla: If it turns out the bailout worked, then thank Bush.

Vendzilla: If it turns out the bailout failed, then blame Obama.

Vendzilla: I am an Independent voter. I never choose sides.

Raised the debt ceiling 18 or 19 times ????

ChrisT, did not mean to kill that fun thread ....:Oh crap:disgust:1orglaugh

I am going to through you a bone dipshit...

Of course you are going to get all happy about this, but the fact is that this would have been done under any president and has been done by many presidents, but it represents the lies that our governments tell us and the little sheep like yourself that believe the lies..

I just found out about this yesterday and this is why we need to stop bailing out companies and lose the mentality "too big to fail"...


The truth behind Chrysler’s fake auto bailout pay back
By: Conn Carroll | Senior Editorial Writer Follow Him @Conncarroll | 05/24/11 4:26 PM
It is not every day that the White House and Democratic National Committee celebrate a supposedly private company’s debt restructuring plan, but such is the marriage of big government and big business under the Obama administration. The New York Times reports: “Chrysler said Tuesday that it had paid back $7.6 billion in loans from the American and Canadian governments, marking another significant step in the revival of the company, the smallest of the Detroit automakers.”

But as The Truth About Cars reports, the loan pay back is just another Obama con job:

Back in November of 2009, when GM announced that it would repay its government loans, it didn’t take much investigation to realize that The General was simply shuffling government money from one pocket to the other and that true “payback” was still a ways off. … And now that our government finds itself “contemplating a runaway deficit and getting rid of its 8 percent of Chrysler’s equity,” would you believe that a similar federal money-shuffle is under way? Believe it.

American taxpayers have already spent more than $13 billion bailing out Chrysler. The Obama administration already forgave more than $4 billion of that debt when the company filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Taxpayers are never getting that money back. But how is Chrysler now paying off the rest of the $7.6 billion they owe the Treasury Department?

The Obama administration’s bailout agreement with Fiat gave the Italian car company a “Incremental Call Option” that allows it to buy up to 16% of Chrysler stock at a reduced price. But in order to exercise the option, Fiat had to first pay back at least $3.5 billion of its loan to the Treasury Department. But Fiat was having trouble getting private banks to lend it the money. Enter Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu who has signaled that he will approve a fuel-efficient vehicle loan to Chrysler for … wait for it … $3.5 billion. TTAC comments:

Now, technically the DOE loan program is supposed to be used for specific, qualifying retooling projects, so Fiat can’t literally take the DOE money and use it to pay back the government loans. But freeing up $3.5b in capital that would otherwise be spent on retooling with low-cost loans will make it infinitely easier for Chrysler to secure the $3.5b in debt refinancing it needs. And, in light of the GAO’s pointed criticisms of the DOE loan program’s fairness and transparency, it’s hard to overlook the coincidental nature of Chrysler’s need for $3.5b and the government’s allocation of extra funds to apparently guarantee a low cost loan to Chrysler for precisely the same amount. After all, we’ve seen this movie before..

So, to recap, the Obama Energy Department is loaning a foreign car company $3.5 billion so that it can pay the Treasury Department $7.6 billion even though American taxpayers spent $13 billion to save an American car company that is currently only worth $5 billion.

Oh, and Obama plans to make this “success” a centerpiece of his 2012 campaign.







.

updated 7/21/2011 2:16:42 PM ET


WASHINGTON ? The Treasury Department said Thursday it has exited its investment in Chrysler LLC after Italian automaker Fiat SpA purchased the U.S. government's remaining holdings in the auto company.

Fiat paid $560 million to the Treasury Department for the government's 98,000 shares. Fiat has run the company since it emerged from bankruptcy protection in June 2009.

Treasury provided a total of $12.5 billion to Chrysler and its financing arm after the recession hampered auto sales and sent Chrysler and General Motors to the brink of collapse. The funds came from the government's $700 billion bank bailout fund.

Since then, $11.2 billion of the assistance has been repaid, Treasury says. Chrysler repaid $5.1 billion in loans from the government in May. Treasury said it likely won't recover the remaining $1.3 billion.

Also Thursday, the Canadian federal and Ontario governments announced that they have sold their remaining stakes in Chrysler to Fiat for $140 million. The money is the final repayment of Canadian government loans that were given to the U.S. automaker two years ago.

The purchase of the U.S. and Canadian governments' stakes gives Fiat 53.5 percent ownership of Chrysler. That's likely to rise to 57 percent before the end of the year when Chrysler begins producing a 40 mpg small car in the U.S.

Chrysler has made a remarkable turnaround from two years ago, when it was rescued by the government.

The company earned net income of $116 million in the first quarter and is forecasting 2011 earnings of $200 million to $500 million. Under the leadership of Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne, the company has cut costs and revived its sales by refurbishing most of its lineup of Jeep, Chrysler, Dodge and Ram vehicles.

Its sales rose 30 percent in June compared to the previous year.

Fiat received a 20 percent stake in Chrysler after the bankruptcy in exchange for management expertise and technology. The Italian automaker has gradually raised its stake by meeting benchmarks set by the government.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43843822/ns/business-autos/

i believe that is a lie. the 11.2 includes the 4 billion that was forgiven when chrysler filed chapter 11..

so, total loss and cost to taxpayers is 5.3 billion....

i will deduct my portion of that from my taxes next year... :1orglaugh




.

Wouldn't that be a fail on Rep. Mo Brooks part? The guy has a degree in economics but totally fails to see that a total world market collapse wouldn't have caused depression? That's a fail like no other....

The bailouts and the stimulus all suck, from the first president that did it to the current.

.....

Marketsmart, just to note, the bailout for Chrysler happened under Bush, rather it was signed into law as he was coming out, leaving Obama with the job of dishing out what had been setup. While he did have to decide several things, what happened afterward is a mute point compared to the bailout itself.

The bailout couldn't be stopped, the legislation was already signed, hands were already tied... I'm pretty sure if either of us got that mess handed to us, we would be working our asses off to cover it up as well, and overall it's not really in that bad of a spot, it's making money.

Still sucks it we bailed them out AGAIN.... I think this is our 2nd bailout of them, maybe 3rd.

So what you're saying it was a good idea, but the execution of it sucks balls?
Yet you're calling me names for agreeing with what I said?

All this I've heard before, and people wonder why I hate Barry.

I never praised Bush, just seemed that BlackMonsters did by calling it Barry's bailout, it was Bushs, Barry took it over and fucked us over with it.

Bailout chart from 1970 up to the 2009 BoA bailout, and a great little bubble chart to go with it.

http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts

One thing that should be noted, under the Bush watch about 1.8 TRILLION in bailouts happened, which is like 4-5 times more than "all" other bailouts added together, including Obama's stimulus package.

LOL, I guess you can't read can you?

Replying to yourself gave me the idea about meds, nobody can prove the stimulus did anything, I have no confusion, both are money ill spent by our government.

It was a good idea, but badly executed.

And why is everyone blaming sides, it's the government period that has fucked us over.

And then some idiot says in the middle of all this that Reagan raised the debt limit, always on point with the conversation, NOT

Your hate for Obama blinds you.

The terms of the bailout were laid out before Obama came along, at that he didn't technically do crap until after the bankruptcy, which he had nothing to do with, rather the courts and a judge determined the outcome of it based on law.

It's not even possible to twist it that Obama took it over and fucked us over with it and equally he can't be given credit for it making money today. He can only take credit for making it appear that the tax payer got some money back, which is something any of us would do if we were handed a bum deal as well.

no, i am saying it was not a good idea..

these companies think that they can get so big that the govt will have to bail them out..

i believe in letting companies fail and that includes banks..

what really pisses me off about this chrysler bailout is that all the pensioners and shareholders got fucked by the chap 11 re org..

there is no reason why the govt should have to forgive one cent of the money that was given to them.. :2 cents:






.

So you must have envisioned that allowing the banks (and other companies that were directly linked to systemic credit flow) to fail would not have resulted in a world-wide deflation and collapse.

Or did you envision that outcome but were willing to accept it?



.

Plenty of proof running around showing where the stimulus did help and continues to help today. It did not help across everything they wanted to, but it did help.

Saying the stimulus was badly executed shows you've never researched it. It's being micro managed and adjusted/changed continually, and it's still going on, 3 years later and it is still not done, and most of the issues it did have are now gone.

Obama can force a State to spend it on the schools for example, but he can't ever force a state not to spend its own school budget and use the stimulus for the schools only, making those same Governor's ask the fed for more money when they run out because now they have none, then them turn around bitch that the stimulus did not improving the schools, when they're the ones that fucked it up, and technically it did greatly help them, saving shit tons of jobs, improvements, etc.

All bailouts in all forms, suck ass for the tax payer... doesn't make a shit what it's for or why, we all take it in the ass when it happens... I think all but 1 president from 1970 to current has done a bailout of some type - and they all sucked, but they did not all fail.