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.
Nice try, yes it was voted on by all with strings attached. Bush led the charge and signed the legislation. It’s the signature that matters, nothing else.
Did you not read the CNN article I posted? It directly quotes Obama clearly claiming he led the bailout of Wall Street and the bankers. And not only that, he doubled and tripled down on that after he was inaugurated. Read Matt Taibbi's article. I posted the link. He spells out exactly what happened very clearly. Should be quite obvious as Wall Street has donated to and endorsed Obama, Hillary, and now Biden.
The financial sector is far and away the largest source of campaign contributions to federal candidates and parties, with insurance companies, securities and investment firms, real estate interests and commercial banks providing the bulk of that money.
The sector contributed generous sums to both parties until 2010 when donations began to heavily bias Republicans, which likely reflects the finance industry's interest in overturning the financial regulations from the Dodd-Frank Act, implemented to protect consumers from predatory lending practices and risky financial decisions from the industry. In 2014, the industry as a whole contributed half a billion dollars to candidate and party committees, PACs as well as outside spending groups; 62 percent of the funds given to candidates and parties went to Republicans. In 2012, the giving was even higher (as is the trend with presidential cycles) at $687,000; nearly 70 percent of the candidate and party gifts went to the GOP. [Read more Background]
For example, Obama took credit for bailing out Wall Street and the banks:
Quote:
"For two weeks, I was on the phone every day with [Treasury] Secretary Paulson and the congressional leadersmaking sure that the principles that have ultimately been adopted were incorporated in the bill," Obama said"
More on Obama's evil alliance with the super-rich:
Quote:
"Barack Obama ran for president as a man of the people, standing up to Wall Street as the global economy melted down in that fateful fall of 2008. He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers "at the expense of hardworking Americans." Obama may not have run to the left of Samuel Gompers or Cesar Chavez, but it's not like you saw him on the campaign trail flanked by bankers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.
Then he got elected.
What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.
How could Obama let this happen? Is he just a rookie in the political big leagues, hoodwinked by Beltway old-timers? Or is the vacillating, ineffectual servant of banking interests we've been seeing on TV this fall who Obama really is?
Whatever the president's real motives are, the extensive series of loophole-rich financial "reforms" that the Democrats are currently pushing may ultimately do more harm than good. In fact, some parts of the new reforms border on insanity, threatening to vastly amplify Wall Street's political power by institutionalizing the taxpayer's role as a welfare provider for the financial-services industry. At one point in the debate, Obama's top economic advisers demanded the power to award future bailouts without even going to Congress for approval - and without providing taxpayers a single dime in equity on the deals."
Why else do you think Wall Street backed Obama, Hillary, and now Biden?
Does it make it more palatable to lefty useful idiots that the Democrats, as an afterthought, throw crumbs to the poor? Because they sure seem to fall for it in large numbers.
What won't be fair is two years of a China Joe admin. and $1,200 won't buy a loaf of bread !!!
I just googled stimulus update, and the first thing you see is, Trump says stimulus talks,$1,200 checks are back in play. The bottom line here is, all you guys talking against it, won't be sending them back, or giving them to charity.
I just googled stimulus update, and the first thing you see is, Trump says stimulus talks,$1,200 checks are back in play. The bottom line here is, all you guys talking against it, won't be sending them back, or giving them to charity.
Many of us don't qualify for the Trump Welfare plan.
I just googled stimulus update, and the first thing you see is, Trump says stimulus talks,$1,200 checks are back in play. The bottom line here is, all you guys talking against it, won't be sending them back, or giving them to charity.
It will never happen and i am very happy about that. Plus my family do not qualify for government welfare anyway.
My gut instinct is that nobody really cares about this, but I'll ask anyway.
Does anyone think it is unfair for single taxpayers to get just $1,200 "stimulus" while households with married couples get $2,400 + an additional allotment for child dependents?
Surely some of those households will combine those funds and use it toward buying a car or do a reno project in the home.
Why would it be unfair.
1 person =1,200.
single 1 person=1,200
married 2 people= 1,200 + 1,200= 2,400.
Whats unfair is the cut off age for a child dependent is 17. Why is it not 18 if one is not an adult until they are 18.
A couple I work with got 3,900 last stimulus, married with three kids. They used it to treat their log house.
IMO the stimulus isnt going to help those who have been directly negatively affected by the covid restrictions or virus. People who have not lost a job or business get a check, people who dont work get a check plus other perks, free vision and or dental visits.
It will never happen and i am very happy about that. Plus my family do not qualify for government welfare anyway.
Well many of Trumps supporters do. I live in a middle class neighborhood, I have Trumps supporters as neighbors, and I was tired of them asking me about stimulus payments.
Seems fair to me. That $2400 put a lot of liquor bottles in my household. It is way past time for a refill.
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.
