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.
The Federal government is the issuer of currency to the monetary system.
More evidence you dont know what you are talking about
Its the Federal Reserve who issues Federal Reserve Notes which then get sold to the federal government in exchange for US Bonds. Only AFTER this takes place can the US Treasury print additional currency for the federal government to spend.
The FED issues currency, not the federal government, they only print it.
Do I know about the banks' financial condition? No. But you know who did? Hank Paulson. Why don't you ask the former Secretary of the Treasury the question of why he thinks he knows the bank's financial condition better the CFO's.
.
Yep.
Paulson knew if he let the entire industry know who specifically was in trouble, the entire house would crash.
To prevent this he put in place mechanisms so that none could see who "really" needed funds and who didn't.
This action backed the system off the ledge. Keep in mind, during this period some markets shut down and hadn't opened for 3 or 4 days because of the systemic risk failures in the US banking system and insurance industry imposed.
Paulson knew if he let the entire industry know who specifically was in trouble, the entire house would crash.
To prevent this he put in place mechanisms so that none could see who "really" needed funds and who didn't.
This action backed the system off the ledge. Keep in mind, during this period some markets shut down and hadn't opened for 3 or 4 days because of the systemic risk failures in the US banking system and insurance industry imposed.
FAIL.. Paulson knew that if these specific banks crashed, then the US Government would crash and go insolvent, since the US Government guaranteed tens of trillions, if not hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of mortgage debt that couldnt be paid for in the event the notes were called.
They saved the US Government, not the banks, because the banks collaterals were insured
Last edited by CaseyB; 04-27-2012 at 06:48 AM..
Reason: response to deletion
Um, changing a stock market ticker, doesnt mean you are a different company. Where are you getting these "numbers" fom, your ass?
LOL. You're stretching it a bit far aren't you? If a company liquidates its assets and eased to exist; even if a few remaining guards start a new company, that company is by all intent and purposes, a new company.
The number I cited is common knowledge. Just search the Internet.
"This "liquidation bankruptcy" is the most common filing for business failures, accounting for about 75 percent of all business bankruptcy filings."
You do know what "liquidation bankruptcy" (Chp 7) means, don't you?
Until you can tell me where government gets money, so it can pump into the economy, your postngs are nothing but a little kid who cant do anything but repeat talking points they heard that sound good, but simply makes no sense.
This is the only one of your babble I responded to because its the one I want to focus on to simply prove you dont have a clue.
Uh, eh. It's scary how your mind works. You can keep throwing out insults until your face turns red but it's not going to bother me, you know.
.
What allowed these banks to over leverage was GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES on assets they owned. If government guarantees your investments, its not an overleverage, unless you think the government is a bad credit risk.
You might be the only person on this planet who do not think Lehman was over-leveraged. You know what, the rest of us sane population is pretty much in synch with Bloomberg's article below, and if you disagree with Bloomberg, feel free to contact them and tell them how right you are:
Most of the banks DIDNT WANT THE MONEY. I dont need to ask him why he forced banks to take money they didnt want, I didnt bring him up, YOU DID.. Why dont you run off and ask him
Now, you're just being difficult. Whether the banks want the money or not is irrelevant because some of them obviously didn't know what the hell they were doing. I think that deep down, you know you lost this one. I mean, every respected economist said it was the right thing to do and they're obviously not saying that just to **** you off. Maybe you should do more research on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Translation, your head in in the sand, and you only want to hear what you want to hear, and deny anything else.. Yeah, you openen minded liberals are always good for a laugh.
There are many in the industry who called the plan to upgrade the least used railways, stupid. Maybe you should follow along with the rest of the class and you wouldnt need so much special attention. You should be thanking Bushs's no child left behind policies for the extra support you are receiving
.... And there many in the industry who thinks it's the greatest thing since slice bread. So your point is to only believe what you want people to believe?
.
It was good until the economy crashed again in the late 80's. Caused directly by Voodoonomics, or have you cons already forgotten about that.
Where did you get that from? The economy did not "crash" in the late-'80s. It was still doing well... a low unemployment rate, low inflation and strong GDP growth.
LOL. You're stretching it a bit far aren't you? If a company liquidates its assets and eased to exist; even if a few remaining guards start a new company, that company is by all intent and purposes, a new company.
The number I cited is common knowledge. Just search the Internet.
"This "liquidation bankruptcy" is the most common filing for business failures, accounting for about 75 percent of all business bankruptcy filings."
You do know what "liquidation bankruptcy" (Chp 7) means, don't you?
Uh, eh. It's scary how your mind works. You can keep throwing out insults until your face turns red but it's not going to bother me, you know.
.
@ beb0p - I read over the entire thread and Wow. You laid waste to these repub's and took them to school all over again. How does it feel, repub's?!?!?!? I mean isn't it great when you're educated and you can intelligently dissect the opposing point of view. I mean the argument was weak from the jump but beb0p you may have to dumb it down next time so even they can understand.
I'm not going to address TARP again because it has been debated to death already across millions of forums. All I have to say is that if you're right, then many of this nation's smartest economists, including Ben Bernanke, is wrong.
Basically in order for you to be right; our smartest, brightest, sharpest, and most knowledgeable experts would have to be wrong. What is the odds of that?
an equal number of the nations "smartest" economists disagreed with the things that bernanke did. all that means is that they disagreed with what bernanke did, it doesnt make bernanke any smarter than they are. even the best in ANY field can be wrong.
Quote:
FDR is voted by conservative scholars, not liberal scholars, to be the third greatest president in our history; behind only Lincoln and Washington.
So basically you're calling Obama a greener version of FDR? I think he should put this label somewhere in his campaign.
no, i am saying that obama is NO FDR. dear leader chairman maobama wasted a lot of money on garbage programs, airports that were, and are, little used, trains stations that are never used, turtle tunnels, putting shrimp on tread mills, frisbee golf courses, etc. these programs did not stimulate the economy, they just wasted millions of taxpayer dollars for NOTHING.
as i said about FDR, when he spent huge amounts of money, he at least invested in the infrastructure of the country, building roads, national parks, etc.
Quote:
And yeah, Obama doesn't spend money on infrastructure eh? Does high speed rail rings a bell? Apparently not.
.
so where is the high speed rail system in this country? how many trains are up and running? the answer is NONE. high speed rail in this country is an expensive boondoggle. there are many things that are going to need to be done before we can even start building any thing to do with high speed rail in this country, the big one is upping our electrical generating capacity in a rather substantial way. which means building MORE power plants of all kinds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingtodd
@ beb0p - I read over the entire thread and Wow. You laid waste to these repub's and took them to school all over again. How does it feel, repub's?!?!?!? I mean isn't it great when you're educated and you can intelligently dissect the opposing point of view. I mean the argument was weak from the jump but beb0p you may have to dumb it down next time so even they can understand.
actually i think the 75% number is a bit low considering that something like 80-85% of new business start ups fail in the first year.
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.
.
