Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is the problem I have with the idea we profited.
I remember clearly that (D) apologists for Obama were claiming the bailed out GM & Chrysler turned a profit when it was all said and done. I do not know what convoluted math they used at the time, but many economists said we lost big bucks.
Even in the article you linked from CNN, it states;
Overall, the auto bailout was the one big money loser for TARP. Even with the Ally sale, taxpayers lost about $9.2 billion.
So one is left to wonder how accurate the claim is that taxpayers profited in the billions.
Personally I think the people of Baltimore and they alone should be responsible if any bills come due from the riots.
However if someone else should foot the bill, it should be the DNC for all the decades of irresponsible governance. Add to that the liberal (D) mayor who instructed the police to hold back.
Oh yeah, we took the loss on the GM/Chrysler/Ally bailout. But we made up for it in interest/dividends paid back by other entities.
And, despite MSM articles, there is still outstanding TARP money not yet paid back.
We loaned out $454 billion and we've gotten back $441 billion.
They should make the rioters pay. If they can't pay, they should work for free to clean the town up.
Actually, I take that back. ALL rioters should be forced to clean up the damage. Then they can all learn the value of what they destroyed, and obtain some work experience/references so that they can actually get jobs in the future and be productive rather than destructive.
Every bank paid back that TARP money. So it was not "federally financed".
The USG actually made money because they were loans with interest, not freebie handouts.
You are wrong. All of Wall Street's profits (Investors.com relishes in, and pats on back for)
were fueled by the bailouts, QE's, and computer rigging. The banks you're thinking of
who "paid it back" are only some, not all.. and it's not the TARP money that saved them,
it was the borrowing at the Fed discount window (free money window they don't even report on)
and the QEs which made them able to acquire all the belly-ups. The financial instruments such as CDSs were
paid for by the US government buying the stocks of AIG, Fannie, Freddie, and others.
So, it's not a matter of paying back the TARP money. The Government goes into debt when
the private, foreign "Fed" buys bonds. They aren't retiring the debt. They are using it to
buy the Government itself.. meanwhile banks all get free money from the "Fed" - and
the cities and towns have to pay 4-5%+ annual interest to the banks who get the money
for nothing - then charge the people for it. Understand ?
Wall Street would have been done, broke - and all the fat cat idiots wouldn't have had their
golden parachutes and offshore accounts without crying to the Government for help.
And you're going to begrudge the grand old City of Baltimore for a measly 20 million dollars ?
Who the heck do you think you are ? Listen to me closely. The people are waking up to how
they have gotten thrown over a barrel by our system.
The day is coming when no more will be taken on the chin, and it's going to be ugly.
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Last edited by Snowball7; 05-30-2015 at 05:53 PM..
I agree that anyone involved in the destruction should be involved in repairing the damage they caused but some here will cry that is abuse.
I know people who've gotten DUIs who had to do community service. Surely it's not unreasonable to mandate the same for those who directly destroyed the city.
They should make the rioters pay. If they can't pay, they should work for free to clean the town up.
Actually, I take that back. ALL rioters should be forced to clean up the damage. Then they can all learn the value of what they destroyed, and obtain some work experience/references so that they can actually get jobs in the future and be productive rather than destructive.
And employers would be standing in line waiting to hire them, right? I would imagine you are aware that if one has the slightest infraction against the law in his/her past, employers avoid them like the plague.
This is exactly what the ACLU wants. They do not want "the children" punished. Instead they want meaningful community service to help the thugs (children), learn a trade. It is too bad they weren't shot.
Since not everyone rioted and most people who live there are innocent victims, I'd say they should get relief. It's not going to the rioters anyway. It will go to rebuild the city and help business owners/victims get their lives back.
Not sure how the news reports are reported around the Country, but beginning at about 5am the day after many locals and many from surrounding areas descending upon Baltimore to clean up the mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javacoffee
The police and National Guard were ordered to stand down while the rioters burned and looted. Who gave that order? The mayor? Obama? If we taxpayers have to pay for this, give us Obama, the mayor and anybody else who supported that stand down order. We want them all in prison.
No, the National Guard were not activated until later, so there was no one to "stand down". The police were ordered to back off by Police Chief Batts because the initial group of rioters were teenagers. I honestly don't think that Rawlings-Blake made one decision either way until long after the fact. That is why many on Right AND Left believe that Rawlings-Blake somehow orchestrated the whole thing and/or allowed it to happen. There simply was no leadership from the Mayor's office.
Gov. Hogan had the National Guard on stand-by and was waiting for the call to activate them (another piece of evidence used by the LEFT, btw, as further proof that the whole thing was a Rightwing FEMA conspiracy--seriously, the extreme Left and Right should get together and party. Both say nearly the same thing...). Rawlings-Blake did not make that call until after it was too late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
The city needs to create a special tax. I suggest a 1% special sales tax until the 20 million is raised.
This is the best bet in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Of course, it's pretty clear that dumping $20M into inner city Baltimore won't change anything. The money will go mostly to line the pockets of the well connected as real business will not be returning. The risks vs the potential for profits are simply too high.
In Baltimore the money would disappear, sadly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seafood Junky
Tell them to raise $$ with another Garn-Pix...
Hey, I like the Grand Prix
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phxrider
They should get nothing let the mayor pay for it
Considering that for such a broke and largely dilapidated city, Rawlings-Blake sure does seem to find the money to finance her rather "nice" lifestyle...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunluvver2
Peaceful assembly is a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Looting and throwing rocks, bottles, firebombs etc are not peaceful assemblies. IF the official policy was that Law Enforcement MUST respond to these unlawful demonstrations IMMEDIATELY with lethal force; Wanna bet that would be the end of rioting and looting?
C'mon man, many of the rioters were kids. Should they be punished? Yes, but not killed. One thing you don't see much of (if at all) in Baltimore are those road clean up crews composed of local inmates. Baltimore could surely something like that even on a good day. Public humiliation is a better fit here in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeymags
Do you get how the federal government is funded? Where the money FEMA pays out comes from?
Well maybe not everyone in Baltimore is responsible for what happened - butt ell me why a guy on his ranch in Texas, or a family hanging on the beach in miami, should then pay.
As an aside, why are "FEMA" and "Texas" almost always in close proximity to one another?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeb
mostly because the ones that had enough free time to riot were also the ones that were causing the damages...
I didn't see CEO's out there burning cars...
The initial riots began with teenagers AFTER high school was let out then escalated later into the evening with further rioting happing later on (like at 8pm, for example). Most people, including CEOs, have free time at 8pm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
If Baltimore needs money then it needs to turn to the state, not the Fed.
This article summed it up nicely. Calls it "Federally funded riots" since it was government (local) that gave them the space to commit violence.
Before Hogan came into office that is exactly what Baltimore has done for many years. Hogan already said he would give $20M from Maryland's rainy day fund to Baltimore a month ago, so I don't know what all of these other links are about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1
Here is the problem I have with the idea we profited.
I remember clearly that (D) apologists for Obama were claiming the bailed out GM & Chrysler turned a profit when it was all said and done. I do not know what convoluted math they used at the time, but many economists said we lost big bucks.
Even in the article you linked from CNN, it states;
Overall, the auto bailout was the one big money loser for TARP. Even with the Ally sale, taxpayers lost about $9.2 billion.
So one is left to wonder how accurate the claim is that taxpayers profited in the billions.
Personally I think the people of Baltimore and they alone should be responsible if any bills come due from the riots.
However if someone else should foot the bill, it should be the DNC for all the decades of irresponsible governance. Add to that the liberal (D) mayor who instructed the police to hold back.
The Bush Administration designed, approved, and initiated the bailout in Dec. of 2008. Obama later did give more "loan" money later on (~twice as much), but the fact that Conservatives seem to ignore the fact that the idea was that of Bush Jr. is annoying.
Unless things have changed, it was Batts, not Rawlings-Blake, who ordered the police to "stand down". His reasoning was that the initial group of rioters were teenagers and, well, he didn't want to use potentially deadly force on kids.
Also, if you really understand Liberal politics you would quickly see that there is nothing Liberal about Rawlings-Blake. In fact, based on what has been reported in local media one of the main impetus for the protest and later riots was that the majority involved feel that the Mayor is joke who needs to get out. Kind of funny that the armchair Cons on here seem to feel the same way, no? Even Lefty publications such as Mother Jones feel that Rawlings-Blake is not on their team.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,145 posts, read 12,262,620 times
Reputation: 10294
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
Not sure how the news reports are reported around the Country, but beginning at about 5am the day after many locals and many from surrounding areas descending upon Baltimore to clean up the mess.
No, the National Guard were not activated until later, so there was no one to "stand down". The police were ordered to back off by Police Chief Batts because the initial group of rioters were teenagers. I honestly don't think that Rawlings-Blake made one decision either way until long after the fact. That is why many on Right AND Left believe that Rawlings-Blake somehow orchestrated the whole thing and/or allowed it to happen. There simply was no leadership from the Mayor's office.
Gov. Hogan had the National Guard on stand-by and was waiting for the call to activate them (another piece of evidence used by the LEFT, btw, as further proof that the whole thing was a Rightwing FEMA conspiracy--seriously, the extreme Left and Right should get together and party. Both say nearly the same thing...). Rawlings-Blake did not make that call until after it was too late.
This is the best bet in my opinion.
In Baltimore the money would disappear, sadly.
Hey, I like the Grand Prix
Considering that for such a broke and largely dilapidated city, Rawlings-Blake sure does seem to find the money to finance her rather "nice" lifestyle...
C'mon man, many of the rioters were kids. Should they be punished? Yes, but not killed. One thing you don't see much of (if at all) in Baltimore are those road clean up crews composed of local inmates. Baltimore could surely something like that even on a good day. Public humiliation is a better fit here in my opinion.
As an aside, why are "FEMA" and "Texas" almost always in close proximity to one another?
The initial riots began with teenagers AFTER high school was let out then escalated later into the evening with further rioting happing later on (like at 8pm, for example). Most people, including CEOs, have free time at 8pm.
Before Hogan came into office that is exactly what Baltimore has done for many years. Hogan already said he would give $20M from Maryland's rainy day fund to Baltimore a month ago, so I don't know what all of these other links are about.
The Bush Administration designed, approved, and initiated the bailout in Dec. of 2008. Obama later did give more "loan" money later on (~twice as much), but the fact that Conservatives seem to ignore the fact that the idea was that of Bush Jr. is annoying.
Unless things have changed, it was Batts, not Rawlings-Blake, who ordered the police to "stand down". His reasoning was that the initial group of rioters were teenagers and, well, he didn't want to use potentially deadly force on kids.
Also, if you really understand Liberal politics you would quickly see that there is nothing Liberal about Rawlings-Blake. In fact, based on what has been reported in local media one of the main impetus for the protest and later riots was that the majority involved feel that the Mayor is joke who needs to get out. Kind of funny that the armchair Cons on here seem to feel the same way, no? Even Lefty publications such as Mother Jones feel that Rawlings-Blake is not on their team.
It was Rawlings-Blake who opened the door. Marilyn Mosby fanned the flames. But it was Nick Mosby, along with local ministers, who asked the police to stand back.
Interview with Nick Mosby..
Quote:
The conversation continued, and when Vittert again asked why the police had backed away from the looters, Mosby interrupted again.
"We asked them to back off," said Mosby. "The ministers' community came together. We talked to the police. We told them we would kind of be able to talk to the young guys out here and we asked them to back up, and they did it. It worked out."
"But the liquor store's still being looted," Vittert said.
"That's passed," Mosby said, and then ended the interview.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
