he was a sailor in the navy..

he learned how to salute and probably not much more..

i think he used to wake up and kiss reagans picture every morning..





.

any quick linkies u recommend on this? would like to learn more.....thx in advance.:thumbsup

You didn't really think this one through did you?

Yes it was not spent wisely. Like Bush's tax break for the rich or invading Iraq. All bad spending.

But that badly spent money went into the US economy.

Illinois got a lot of money.
Hollywood got a lot of money, where was the film made?
The digital converter box money probably ended up in China.

The loans go INTO the US economy. Take them away and that money disappears. How do you think they will replace it?

Good luck on the US manufacturing or Wall Street filling the gap. Their alrady filling their part of the gap.

The harsh truth it the US like so many Western Economies, produce too little and spend too much. Look at Greece for the worse example, the US needs to pull in the spending and up taxes. Because increasing production isn't going to happen with anything the Governments do.

What a condescending cunt.

:disgust

David, how much for your skype bot. You never answered my PM on black hat world. Are you busy?

one more point...look at the TED spread when the bailout passed in October. Thats all the proof you need that the bailout unfroze the credit market. Please do keep asserting the complete collapse of wall street would have been meaningless to every person in america with money in the bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TE...to_9_26_08.png

No, how could I. Its just that everyone of your post sound so intelligent. Harvard MBA grad I would guess?
See, David the Ubber Jew from Houston has MBA too. Telling you, kid is genius. If you ever need twitter spam blast or good skype bot, talk to that guy. Who would have thought that at the young age of 28 he would've achieved so much !

:1orglaugh thanks for this info...

now i know exactly who this little cunt is.... :thumbsup





.

Check out little David's ownage administered by Gambrinus

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1023328&page=3

BTW, this is the face of our 28 year old Republican that makes his beer money spamming skype and twitter accounts :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Here's demon on webcam wearing his wife beater shirt.

https://gfy.com/image.php?u=92130&dateline=1269781534

I was a moderator here before that, did I ban you once for being slow?

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.