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.
If you go back to September 2008, the financial crisis had reached such a point -- no bank would lend, not even to other banks because so many banks and financial institutions were loaded with toxic mortgages, and who knew which bank was solvent -- that situation had to be dealt otherwise the 1930's depression would have paled by comparison. The government had little choice but to pass TARP. It was a question of choosing a lesser evil.
I got a loan in 2008. Hundreds of thousands got loans in 2008. Loan to each other? Indeed there is no honor among thieves. How can you say this with a straight face? There was no problem for those with good credit to get money.
Quote:
It's a free world. We're not going to tell people, in particular seniors, that they can't get back to work if they want or need to.
Avoid the point. They don't want to have to work.
Quote:
Not in 2008-9, when the economy was falling. In that period we had deflation. See: Historical Inflation Rate | InflationData.com
That's why we need the Recovery Act (inflation) to counteract the deflation that was caused by the housing bubble collapsing that precipitated the financial crisis.
We had deflation because the markets were in a bubble. Bubbles always collapse. It's a simple fact. Housing was priced way above any rational expectation and it couldn't be sustained. Of course it fell. The answer is not creating a new bubble as we did with QE and similiar. It's going to pop.
It's not hard. We had the tech bubble, pop. We created the housing bubble, pop. We created the QE bubble. Nobody was going to die because the markets were at 10,000 as opposed to 13,000.
Except back in 2009, Rep. Paul D. Ryan was railing against President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package as a “wasteful spending spree.”
That's the problem with bitterly partisan politcians like Ryan. They'll vote YEA foe ANYTHING as long as the bill comes from his own party, and they vote NAY against EVERYTHING that comes from the other party.
Ryan voted YEA, for half trillion dollar Medicare expansion only to oppose everything related to Medicare later
Ryan voted YEA, for TARP, only to fight againgt same measuses few months later when they come from Dems.
That's the problem with bitterly partisan politcians like Ryan. They'll vote YEA foe ANYTHING as long as the bill comes from his own party, and they vote NAY against EVERYTHING that comes from the other party.
Obama stated that his vote against the budget ceiling in 2006 was purely political. His political votes are many. Do we want to go there?
You can go off topic if you wish, but don't expect me to follow.
The topic I replied to was:
That's the problem with bitterly partisan politcians like Ryan.
Bitterly partisan politicians. I've seen a trend for those faced with things they do not like to try and dismiss them by saying they are off topic.
If one does not want something discussed, one should not bring it up. The problem is less with hypocritical politicians but more with hypocritical voters.
That's the problem with bitterly partisan politcians like Ryan.
Bitterly partisan politicians. I've seen a trend for those faced with things they do not like to try and dismiss them by saying they are off topic.
If one does not want something discussed, one should not bring it up. The problem is less with hypocritical politicians but more with hypocritical voters.
You were off topic. This is the topic: "Paul Ryan begged congress to pass Tarp."
It is about Paul Ryan, but you are talking about Obama. Open a thread if you wish. I dont' plan to vote for Obama, so I don't care what you have to say about him.
You were off topic. This is the topic: "Paul Ryan begged congress to pass Tarp."
It is about Paul Ryan, but you are talking about Obama. Open a thread if you wish. I dont' plan to vote for Obama, so I don't care what you have to say about him.
But why are you upset that Ryan voted for TARP but had no problem with Obama voting for TARP as well ?
That is really the question. And this vote happened one month before elections.
I was actually happy that the House voted NO for TARP the first time. I cheered them for finally standing up to the banksters. But all it took was one closed door meeting with those banksters and the House passed it the second time round.
Ron Paul stood fast though..voted NO.
Kay "bailout" Hutchison voted YES and us Texans remembered that when she threw her hat into the ring for Governor of Texas. We sent her back to DC with her tail between her legs.
Last edited by HappyTexan; 08-16-2012 at 01:02 PM..
But why are you upset that Ryan voted for TARP but had no problem with Obama voting for TARP as well ?That is really the question. And this vote happened on month before elections.
I already explained. It is the hypocrisy, and bitter partisanship that irks me. Ryan supported bail outs then Repubs pushed for them, and only a few months later opposed them to death because the Dems pushed for them. Don't you see a problem with that level of BS? He makes his decision based PURELY on whose bill it is, Dem or Repub. Like I said I won't be voting for Obama (I support Ron Paul), but at least he voted the same way both times, and had no problem supporting a Republican TARP bill.
I already explained. It is the hypocrisy, and bitter partisanship that irks me. Ryan supported bail outs then Repubs pushed for them, and only a few months later opposed them to death because the Dems pushed for them. Don't you see a problem with that level of BS? He makes his decision based PURELY on whose bill it is, Dem or Repub. Like I said I won't be voting for Obama (I support Ron Paul), but at least he voted the same way both times, and had no problem supporting a Republican TARP bill.
I see the BS on both sides. Not just about TARP but about almost everything else as well.
The Patriot Act was another biggie but when it came time, each and every expiration got renewed.
There was no Republican vs Democratic TARP bill. Paulsen demanded a blank check from Congress to spend as HE saw fit and that's what he got..a blank check. Paulsen appointed Neil Cash-N-Carry to dole out the money.
Not sure what your pointless point is, but even most people who were 100% against TARP, myself included, have now agreed it was probably necessary.
Just more hot air and desperation.
I love it when lefttards learn new words.
lol
The Daily Kos...the left's blog machine. Worthless to the core.
Whose the "lefttard"....me or the person who supports TARP and government intervention in the marketplace. Sadly debating children isn't what I'm here to do so I'll leave you to your crayons and silly putty.
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.
