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 fact that you can sit there and say that the taxpayers will profit from buying toxic assets from the banks at face value, then selling to investors at a discount is laughable.
Is it?
I'd like to understand - you're asserting unequivocally - the Taxpayers will not benefit from the Treasury's Plan - is this correct?
I read exactly what you wrote - is this your retraction?
Again, you did not read through the threads. Borrowing money from the Chinese, paying interest to them, in order to then re-loan money out to other investors to POSSIBLY make a profit is not what the government s job is. The governments job is not to buy assets from a bank, using taxpayers money, to loan out to rich investors to make them richer.
Anyone who does not understand that higher debt = lower credit ratings and higher borrowing cost for future generations truly does not understand how the bond market works. We only need to look at California to see where the US Government is headed financially, their bond ratings were just lowered substantially and they have the highest borrowing cost of any state in the nation. We have taken the $350Billion Tarp money, have received $11B in dividends from it, and some on the left would call that "profit" while those who understand that we surely have lot more than $11B in available credit by spending $350B.
I have been VERY consistant with this through the whole thread and the fact that you want to assume I said things I didnt is no surprise. Anyone who thinks this is "profitable" does so by not looking at the complete spreadsheet of the budget and only looking at the limited one for "this plan"..
Its like saying, I made my montly mortgage this month so I'm building up equity, but conveniently forgetting to say that to do so, you put the monthly payment on your visa...
Again, you did not read through the threads. Borrowing money from the Chinese, paying interest to them, in order to then re-loan money out to other investors to POSSIBLY make a profit is not what the government s job is. The governments job is not to buy assets from a bank, using taxpayers money, to loan out to rich investors to make them richer.
Anyone who does not understand that higher debt = lower credit ratings and higher borrowing cost for future generations truly does not understand how the bond market works. We only need to look at California to see where the US Government is headed financially, their bond ratings were just lowered substantially and they have the highest borrowing cost of any state in the nation. We have taken the $350Billion Tarp money, have received $11B in dividends from it, and some on the left would call that "profit" while those who understand that we surely have lot more than $11B in available credit by spending $350B.
I have been VERY consistant with this through the whole thread and the fact that you want to assume I said things I didnt is no surprise. Anyone who thinks this is "profitable" does so by not looking at the complete spreadsheet of the budget and only looking at the limited one for "this plan"..
Its like saying, I made my montly mortgage this month so I'm building up equity, but conveniently forgetting to say that to do so, you put the monthly payment on your visa...
Again, I read the entire thread, again - you're asserting unequivocally - the Taxpayers will not benefit from the Treasury's Plan - is this correct?
It's a yes or no question, I only asked for verification, you need only say yes this is your position. Correct?
The Taxpayers should not endorse a government plan they, themselves will benefit from?
Interesting.
Wow, no link showing we will profit from the plan or even benefit from it.. Nothing to dispute the fact that this will benefit the rich, that even economists agree will take place. I guess I'm supposed to take your word for it..
Thank you for answering the question. Finally. It seemed fairly simply, but so is pulling teeth, I'm told.
I don't think it's necessary to provide you with a link.
I'm not certain why "even if they did, that does not mean they should do it" is a good strategy for the taxpayers, if they will benefit - perhaps you can explain your line of thinking on this.
All of these economists are coming out and now saying exactly what I've said since day one...
Perhaps you're smarter than all of the economists. Have you told them you've been saying this since day one?
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.
