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.
Sorry; Would it be pompous of me to ask what "being cure" meant? Lol
No, that would be an obvious misspelling. Notice the proximity of the "r" and "t" keys on the keyboard.
Pompous would be the conspiracy theorist who rants about the dreaded New World Order and the media brainwashing believing anyone cares about their advice on lights bulbs coming on.
The reality is that government is doing just fine and the banks are making record profits.
Wrong on both counts. Admit it or not, our government is broke, to the point of no return. The full faith and credit of the United States government doesn't mean what it used to mean to those that hold our debt. And banks? Yes, banks for the most parts are back to being profitable, but not nearly at the level they were prior to this recession. And with changes made under new financial reform regulations, a return to prerecession profit levels is looking tougher and tougher for the big banks, since the government won't let them charge all the idiots who overdraft their checking accounts anymore.
No, that would be an obvious misspelling. Notice the proximity of the "r" and "t" keys on the keyboard.
Pompous would be the conspiracy theorist who rants about the dreaded New World Order and the media brainwashing believing anyone cares about their advice on lights bulbs coming on.
Sheesh one can almost see spittle flying out of your mouth here.
Wrong on both counts. Admit it or not, our government is broke, to the point of no return. The full faith and credit of the United States government doesn't mean what it used to mean to those that hold our debt. And banks? Yes, banks for the most parts are back to being profitable, but not nearly at the level they were prior to this recession. And with changes made under new financial reform regulations, a return to prerecession profit levels is looking tougher and tougher for the big banks, since the government won't let them charge all the idiots who overdraft their checking accounts anymore.
I guess it kind of depends on how you look at it. You can look at "the goverment" as being the elected officials, or you can look at it as the entity that the taxpayers are financially responsible for.
If you look at it as the former, then yes the elite who call themselves public servents are doing just fine, they are living as privledged citizens, and giving themselves perks like lifelong pensions. Congresspeople charter private jets at taxpayer expense because they are too good to fly with the common public.
If you look at it as the latter, then it is really the citizens who are screwed, not the government, we have to pay back the debt.
As far as the banks go, they have never had it so good.
They are being given free money from the Fed, salaries and bonuses have never been larger.
They can even get away with fraud and forgery without worring about prosecusion.
It would not surprise me in the least if the government did not pass a new bill giving them complete immunity for their crimes. All in the public good of course.
Sheesh one can almost see spittle flying out of your mouth here.
Nah, that was nothing like your usual Big Boogeyman manipulating the markets and commodities at the orders of the evil banking cartel insane rhetoric, not even close.
I'll respond to a poster with a post instead of jimhcon and his retarded son.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover
slackjaw has it all wrong. What the Fed is doing IS harmful to the long-term wealth of all Americans, but especially the middle class. The key words are LONG-TERM. What the Fed and the politicians are fixated upon is the SHORT-TERM--that defined as "until the next election."
This is where we disagree on intent, I don't think the Fed has any intention to make people suffer so they can win an election. Whether they are right or wrong you can find economists supporting either way, they are trying to accomplish their mission of stabilizing the economy.
Wasn't Bernanke appointed by Bush? If his motivation is winning elections why would he be doing this for Obama? A political motivation doesn't make sense.
Wasn't Bernanke appointed by Bush? If his motivation is winning elections why would he be doing this for Obama? A political motivation doesn't make sense.
It is because Obama re-elected him for a second term. Do your research.
The son speaks, this time with thwee smiwey faces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by las vegas drunk
It is because Obama re-elected him for a second term. Do your research.
I know Obama reelected him, but Bush elected him originally right? So the guy's initial support certainly came from a Republican President so he obviously isn't some Democrat puppet, and the elections have obviously demonstrated public sentiment has gone the way of Republicans, so I just can't see this Bernanke deciding he'll purposely make everyone poorer so that the Democrats will like him.
until either party learns to repeal the business cycle all this political finger pointing is a waste of good forum space.
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.
