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.
His company lost $2 BILLION DOLLARS of THEIR OWN MONEY.
Obama lost much more than that on green companies and GM (about $50 BILLION DOLLARS) of OUR MONEY.
If you recall AIG lost around $60 Billion OF THEIR OWN MONEY and got a $150 B bailout, along with several other investment banks. They deserve scrutiny, the losses could have been much greater. Jamie Dimon had few answers other than it won't happen again.
His company lost $2 BILLION DOLLARS of THEIR OWN MONEY.
Obama lost much more than that on green companies and GM (about $50 BILLION DOLLARS) of OUR MONEY.
You should really get your facts straight. GM was a win for both GM and the public. Much of the GM loan has been repaid and the government holds billions in stock. Also, not letting GM go belly up saved $28 billion in unemployment benefits that didn't need to get paid.
On Solyndra:
Quote:
I gather, from what I’ve been reading and hearing in various places, that the right-wing line is that it’s all Solyndra — that your tax dollars are going to pay for vast numbers of wasteful projects.
Now, even the Solyndra story is a lot more nuanced than that. But this seems like a good time to repeat, once again, the truth about federal spending: Your federal government is basically an insurance company with an army. The vast bulk of its spending goes to the big five: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and interest on the debt.
But what about recent deficits? They’re caused mainly by a fall in revenue and a mostly automatic increase in spending on safety-net programs. Oh, and the federal government has been providing aid to state and local governments, largely to limit layoffs of schoolteachers.
The amounts spent on anything remotely resembling Solyndra is a rounding error on a rounding error. It’s just not what your government does on any significant scale.
Maybe you should ask your congressman. Nah.......bad answer. Why not go to a public forum and ask folks that you don't know who have spiffy user names? That's the ticket!!!!
They didn't have the audacity to put Barney, Bubba Clinton, Kerosene Maxine (thank you Larry Elder) or Greenspan on the hot seat after the housing bubble exploded a few years ago despite SEVERALYEARS of warnings, but will gladly trot out a Wall Street titan to unload on.
It's the oldet rule in the DC rulebook; when political intervention causes the economy to either go into a coma or flat-out implode, find somebody to blame.
But as that other old saying goes, when politicians do really stupid things, many folks will wind up getting FSR, as in Filthy Stinkin' Rich!!!'.
They didn't have the audacity to put Barney, Bubba Clinton, Kerosene Maxine (thank you Larry Elder) or Greenspan on the hot seat after the housing bubble exploded a few years ago despite SEVERALYEARS of warnings, but will gladly trot out a Wall Street titan to unload on.
It's the oldet rule in the DC rulebook; when political intervention causes the economy to either go into a coma or flat-out implode, find somebody to blame.
But as that other old saying goes, when politicians do really stupid things, many folks will wind up getting FSR, as in Filthy Stinkin' Rich!!!'.
Yes, there were plenty of reckless and immoral borrowers taking out mortgages they knew (or should have known) they couldn't afford. And yes, you can make a case that the federal government's zeal to increase homeownership levels was partly responsible for lowering lending standards. But the idea that the government is primarily to blame for this whole mess is delusional. It was the private market -- not government programs -- that made, packaged, and sold most of these wretched loans without regard to their quality. The packaging, combined with credit default swaps and other esoteric derivatives, spread the contagion throughout the world. That's why what initially seemed to be a large but containable U.S. mortgage problem touched off a worldwide financial crisis.
Why is JP Morgan Chase Chief Executive Jamie Dimon in front of congress, but not Obama?
What would be the point of Dimon going in front of Obama????? Didn't the bankers do that before and they got a slap on the wrist,
Congress can't do a worse job, so I say go in front of congress
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.
