• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
The question is how did the recession of 1981-82 affect the American people compared to 2007-2009 and the answer is in the misery index as well as the unemployment rate. Charts comparing balance sheets are irrelevant, different time and different income levels.

The point being, there was not a downward slope, at any time, during the Reagan Presidency in terms of household net worth. How can households be suffering when their net worth continued to appreciate?

Paying 17.5% for a home loan and having 10.8%unemployment compared today doesn't compare at all.

Exactly, we would be begging for such a situation now.

Reagan did the right thing, empowered the American people with tax cuts and Obama has empowered the American govt. and believes the govt. creates jobs, apparently just like you.

Of course tax cuts were a necessity; top rates were @ 90% and tax cuts helped pull prices downward.
 
The point being, there was not a downward slope, at any time, during the Reagan Presidency in terms of household net worth. How can households be suffering when their net worth continued to appreciate?

Exactly, we would be begging for such a situation now.

Of course tax cuts were a necessity; top rates were @ 90% and tax cuts helped pull prices downward.

Household net worth was nowhere near what it is now nor did they have the ability to rebound as quickly as they do now. That rebound occurred quite quickly without Obama's help. I was trying to survive during the recession of 1981-82, what were you doing? I voted for Carter and then voted for Reagan. I haven't voted for a Democrat for President since Carter. Living during both and working during both, the high inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment affected the majority more than the 2007-09 recession even though Household net worth dropped. People don't live off net worth, they live off their personal income which took a direct hit because of high inflation, high interest rates, and high unemployment that hurt the economy more than the 07-09 recession. Living during both you cannot convince me that this one was worse so we will just agree to disagree.
 
Stop with the charades and admit the $16 trillion figure is a misrepresentation of the various lending facilities offered by the Fed. I do have to admit i kinda set you up for the failure, but it would have not have been attainable if you bothered to check your sources.

Adios!

Let me know when a loan is not a loan. Speaking of misrepresentation ... if you had already researched this you would have known there was a bailout ... or as you might say liquidity challanged.

If you basing your debate on a loan is not a loan .... errr you win the debate. Based upon that logic GE and GM were not bailed out ... it was ahh an overnight adjustment to liquidity. Here ... let me make it revolving.

A loan is not a loan and because we are friends ... we will just call it ... not a loan ... its a special kind of GFEWZ adjustment to the liquidity challenged.
 
Household net worth was nowhere near what it is now

Not the point, it did not fall AT ALL during the Reagan recession.

nor did they have the ability to rebound as quickly as they do now.

No need. It it was constantly going up!

Living during both and working during both, the high inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment affected the majority more than the 2007-09 recession even though Household net worth dropped.

That is your opinion, you have no way to prove it!

People don't live off net worth

They did during the housing bubble. Homeowners were taking equity out of their homes and using it for consumption (hence negative savings rate during the 2000's).

they live off their personal income which took a direct hit because of high inflation

Incorrect. Inflation also extends to wages, which should seem obvious given inflation cannot go higher without wage increases!

high interest rates, and high unemployment that hurt the economy more than the 07-09 recession

Opinion. You have no way to prove it. On the contrary, i can show dozens of statistics that prove you incorrect.

Living during both you cannot convince me that this one was worse so we will just agree to disagree.

Anecdotal evidence proves squat.
 
Let me know when a loan is not a loan. Speaking of misrepresentation ... if you had already researched this you would have known there was a bailout ... or as you might say liquidity challanged.

If you basing your debate on a loan is not a loan .... errr you win the debate. Based upon that logic GE and GM were not bailed out ... it was ahh an overnight adjustment to liquidity. Here ... let me make it revolving.

A loan is not a loan and because we are friends ... we will just call it ... not a loan ... its a special kind of GFEWZ adjustment to the liquidity challenged.

Don't attempt to change the nature of the debate because you were wrong.

The $16 trillion figure was intellectually dishonest. Time to man up!
 
Don't attempt to change the nature of the debate because you were wrong.

The $16 trillion figure was intellectually dishonest. Time to man up!

Why should I man up to a loan not being a loan? Also a bailout that you stated did "not" exist ... but you have found a new name for to support your debate ... the liquidity challenged. I wonder why one takes loans ... lmao ... is it because they are liquidity challenged? So what do you call the trillion plus you accounted for? Time to step up and stop being "intellectually dishonest".
 
No one is condoning the amount "Bush" Spent but Bush never ran trillion dollar deficits
Lie #1.

2008 and 2009 weren't trillion dollar deficits?

Bush's budget deficits:


2002: 420,772,553,397.10
2003: 554,995,097,146.46
2004: 595,821,633,586.70
2005: 553,656,965,393.18
2006: 574,264,237,491.73
2007: 500,679,473,047.25
2008: 1,017,071,524,649.92
2009: 1,885,104,106,599.30​


and Bush had 9/11 which GAO puts the cost at over a trillion dollars in direct and indirect costs.
Lie #2.

GAO estimated the total cost at $639 billion



GAO:
quote_icon.png
The New York State Senate Finance Committee estimated losses of $639 billion to the United States through 2003 and $22 billion to New York State (in current dollars).
quote_icon.png


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02700r.pdf



I wasn't happy with Bush but faced with the alternative of Gore or Kerry, I chose wisely.
Lies #3 and #4.

You voted for Bush twice for governor, twice for president, and would vote for him again if he could run. And to claim you voted wisely is ridiculous coming from someone who votes strictly party line. Bonzo the Chimp could run and you would vote for him if he ran as Bonzo-R.
 
A kiss is just a kiss and a loan is just a loan ... as time goes by. Hmmmmmmmmmmm a loan is not a loan cuzzz its a PDCF. hmmmmmmmmm

Fed Audit-- Liveblog on Data Dig | OurFuture.org

Just starting to parse through the Fed audit data. Looks like the Primary Dealer Credit Facility is predominantly a bailout for Citigroup and Bank of America. More to come . . .

Looks like in the early days the Primary Dealer Credit Facility was almost exclusively used by Bear Stearns, Countrywide, Barclays and Cantor Fitzgerald. At this point, Bear and Countrywide were JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, respectively. From April 16, 2008 through July 30, 2008, these four firms were the only ones to access the PDCF, and they did it every day the facility was open.

The Fed accepted CCC-or-lower collateral under the Primary Dealer Credit Facility from September 15, 2008 until May 12, 2009. A total of $490.9576 billion in such collateral was accepted. That's billion, with a "b." And you thought TARP was a bailout.

The Fed accepted a total of $1.31 trillion in junk-rated collateral between Sept. 15, 2008 and May 12, 2009 through the Primary Dealer Credit Facility. TARP was nothing compared to this.

Anyone suggesting that the Fed's "emergency lending" facilities are just part of macro or monetary policy is kidding themselves. The Fed refused to accept junk-rated collateral until Sept. 15, 2008. When it became clear that Lehman was going off the rails, they started accepting junk-rated collateral-- even from Lehman Brothers itself!

That makes it very clear that the Fed was bailing out these firms in the midst of a crisis. They made a conscious decision to lower their lending standards in order to save big Wall Street firms with no strings attached.

From March 4, 2009 through May 12, 2009, Citigroup and Bank of America were the sole companies to borrow through the Fed's Primary Dealer Credit Facility, and they used it every single day. A total of 16 firms were eligible for the facility.

When crisis goes nova in Sept. 2008, two Merrill Lynch facilities start borrowing everything they can from the Fed. They're called "Merrill Lynch Government Securities Inc." and "Merrill Lynch Government Securities Inc. -- London"

So far as I can tell, the distinction between London and the U.S. is just an excuse for Merrill to take double advantage of the Fed's bailout facilities. Both borrow every single day once the crisis sets in, and both pledge loads of junk bonds as collateral.

Goldman Sachs also used foreign subsidiaries to double-down on Fed bailout facilities. Just like Merrill, they hae a U.S. unit taking out loans, and a London unit.

Morgan Stanley also opened a London subsidiary to double-down on Fed bailout facilities, although it appears they caught onto the scam later than Goldman and Merrill.

Moderately funny. Citigroup, home of Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, didn't figure out the foreign subsidiary scam until Nov. 24, 2008, a month after its competitors.

BofA and its predecessors Countrywide and Merrill Lynch accessed the Fed's Primary Dealer Credit Facility 416 times, for a total of $2.783 trillion. A full $476 billion in junk bonds were pledged as collateral for the loans, or roughly 17 percent. The PDCF is an overnight facility, so a lot of these loans are simply being rolled over day-to-day. Nevertheless, it's a staggering amount of money, with an enormous degree of totally worthless collateral being pledged to justify it.
 
Last edited:
Take your opinion to the American people and see if they agree. Currently they don't. It does appear that you don't realize that discouraged workers enter and leave the market and that affects the labor force number with impacts the unemployment rates. I would have thought someone of your superior intelligence and experience would know that.
Umm, discouraged workers declined by 142,000. 331,000 jobs gained last month.

And you remain under the delusion that the unemployment rate remained at 9.1% without gaining jobs even though 150,000 jobs are needed just to keep the rate at 9.1%.
 
Why should I man up to a loan not being a loan? Also a bailout that you stated did "not" exist ... but you have found a new name for to support your debate ... the liquidity challenged. I wonder why one takes loans ... lmao ... is it because they are liquidity challenged? So what do you call the trillion plus you accounted for? Time to step up and stop being "intellectually dishonest".

"The $16 trillion in secret loans is a bailout." comment was bull****. Even the senator who would stand behind such a ridiculous statement is a complete moron.

There was not $16 trillion in secret loans, as has been explained to ad nauseum. So quit replying with the intent to build straw men, as i do not respond to fallacious arguments. Instead, i call them out ;)
 
"The $16 trillion in secret loans is a bailout." comment was bull****. Even the senator who would stand behind such a ridiculous statement is a complete moron.

There was not $16 trillion in secret loans, as has been explained to ad nauseum. So quit replying with the intent to build straw men, as i do not respond to fallacious arguments. Instead, i call them out ;)

Maybe you can respond to post 1033 and explain how PDCF loans were rolled over everyday? I mean they weren't loans now were they?
 
"The $16 trillion in secret loans is a bailout." comment was bull****. Even the senator who would stand behind such a ridiculous statement is a complete moron.

There was not $16 trillion in secret loans, as has been explained to ad nauseum. So quit replying with the intent to build straw men, as i do not respond to fallacious arguments. Instead, i call them out ;)

You still haven't admitted there was a bailout by the FED of any amount!!! You fight for honesty whats your response?

Get off the ropes and stop playing rope a dope!
 
Last edited:
Lie #1.

2008 and 2009 weren't trillion dollar deficits?

Bush's budget deficits:


2002: 420,772,553,397.10
2003: 554,995,097,146.46
2004: 595,821,633,586.70
2005: 553,656,965,393.18
2006: 574,264,237,491.73
2007: 500,679,473,047.25
2008: 1,017,071,524,649.92
2009: 1,885,104,106,599.30​



Lie #2.

GAO estimated the total cost at $639 billion



GAO:
quote_icon.png
The New York State Senate Finance Committee estimated losses of $639 billion to the United States through 2003 and $22 billion to New York State (in current dollars).
quote_icon.png


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02700r.pdf




Lies #3 and #4.

You voted for Bush twice for governor, twice for president, and would vote for him again if he could run. And to claim you voted wisely is ridiculous coming from someone who votes strictly party line. Bonzo the Chimp could run and you would vote for him if he ran as Bonzo-R.

This really is getting old, I am now convinced that you really aren't that smart as you say the same things over and over again all in hopes that if you say it often enough it will be accurate. Bush did not have a trillion dollar deficit in 2009 unless he ran that deficit from Dallas. Do you work for the DNC? The distorted information you post seems like DNC material.

Regarding 9/11, do you know the difference between direct and indirect costs? Of course not.

Get over your BDS, it really is a sickness. If Bush ran against Obama I would vote for him again as I will take the Bush results vs. Obama's any day. Still waiting for you to put them side by side using nominal numbers.
 
Last edited:
Umm, discouraged workers declined by 142,000. 331,000 jobs gained last month.

And you remain under the delusion that the unemployment rate remained at 9.1% without gaining jobs even though 150,000 jobs are needed just to keep the rate at 9.1%.

Where did those discouraged workers show up in the calculations? Think about it
 
No bailout here. Honesty and misrepresentation. You knew all this ... I on the other hand did not.

The Use and Abuse of the Primary Dealer Credit Facility - Seeking Alpha

The Use and Abuse of the Primary Dealer Credit Facility
1. A total $8,959bn was loaned to financial institutions (including rollover) with a weighted average interest rate of 1.53 percent. The total collateral against this $8,959bn of loan was $9,665bn, a mere 7.88% overcollateralization in a time of distress and rapidly deteriorating assets. The quality of the collateral posted for PDCF was pitiable. Only 1.4% of the collateral, on average, was traditional collateral posted in the form of U.S. Treasury or agency debt, while corporate securities topped the list with 24% followed by equity at 22% and municipal bond at 14 percent. Collateral as indicated by rating points to the fact that almost 65% of collateral was either junk or equities. Of the total collateral, 42% was virtually pure junk consisting of MBS / BBB / BB / B / CCC and unrated instruments and equities constituted 23% of collateral.

Of the total collateral, 15% was unrated, 7% MBS, 6% BBB, 4% BB, 4% B and 5% CCC or lower. Only 20% of collateral was AAA while 32% was rated A and above. Basically, the Fed simultaneously became the dumping ground for all of the trash that the nation’s big banks needed to get rid of and the world’s largest vulture fund, it’s just that it paid premium prices for the junk.

saupload_pcf_collateral.png
 
Last edited:
You still haven't admitted there was a bailout by the FED of any amount!!! You fight for honesty whats your response?

Get off the ropes and stop playing rope a dope!

Who cares, i never stated there were never any bailouts dude, so quit trying to side step the entire point of this discussion. You made an error by stating $16 trillion in secret loans which of course were in no way secret.

AIG got bailed out
BOA got bailed out
Fannie May got bailed out
Freddie Mac got bailed out
GM and Chrysler got bailed out
C got bailed out

However, the Feds various credit facilities are not, and were never intended to be used to "bail out" anything. they are there simply to provide liquidity and credit during times of need for member banks; when credit markets fail to function in an appropriate manner.

So get over it. You lost, you were wrong, and you definitely have no business in these discussions because you lack the knowledge base and familiarity with the industry to keep up with those that do.
 
Last edited:
Who cares, i never stated there were never any bailouts dude, so quit trying to side step the entire point of this discussion. You made an error by stating $16 trillion in secret loans which of course were in no way secret.

AIG got bailed out
BOA got bailed out
Fannie May got bailed out
Freddie Mac got bailed out
GM and Chrysler got bailed out
C got bailed out

However, the Feds various credit facilities are not, and were never intended to be used to "bail out" anything. they are there simply to provide liquidity and credit during times of need for member banks; when credit markets fail to function in an appropriate manner.

So get over it. You lost, you were wrong, and you definitely have no business in these discussions because you lack the knowledge base and familiarity with the industry to keep up with those that do.

Post# 670 A loan is not a bailout.

As you recall I stated the FED bailed out the gamblers, I wasn't about TARP. Was it 16 trillion in loans ... definitely yes. Were the PDCF loans long term credit ... no, were the PDCF loans used long term ... YES.

Did I state by the way ... the FED bailed out gamblers with 16 trillion in secret long term loans or did I state the FED bailed out gamblers with 16 trillion secret loans? I don't consider the TAF loans very long term. The term was long enough to turn the gamblers fortunes around ... long enough, which in the end was the whole point of the FED bailing them out.

Did you think the FED tried to avoid and discourage the investigation so the public would lose faith ... was because all was rosy at the farm? Did they want people to know about the shady practices and junk backing loans?

So you think by stating the "company" mission policy of the FED ... you change what actually happened? Is that "honest"?

Read your post again and tell me anything you stated ... anything which supports the debate I was wrong!

That reply was empty ... and you finish with an insult. A no substance post declaring victory. Right wingers like you always pull that crap.
 
Last edited:
I've presented evidence of a bailout by the FED. Evidence of 16 Trillion in loans. Goldenboy you have not presented 1 shred of evidence to the contrary.

Nyah, Nyah, I win the debate and I'm smarter then you, and you have no knowledge of the industry ... is not evidence. As you purport to support honest debate and you will swoop in to challenge dishonesty, its disappointing to see you not present evidence to support your contentions.

I win is not evidence of supporting your debate.
 
Okay now that you are getting somewhat reasonable, I don't blame Clinton for the attack .... and I didn't blame him for the first. I don't blame Bush for the attack either. When people are willing to jump into the seat of an air line and crash that plane killing themselves ..... there is "NO" way to stop such an act. If you are lucky you can make it more difficult, but you aren't going to stop anyone that intent on killing people.
I don't buy that. I believe attacks like that can indeed be thwarted. If they couldn't be, then there's no point in fighting terrorism. But one thing is for certain -- doing absolutely nothing will not prevent an attack.

That same holds true, if someone wanted you or I dead, and they made up that mind that at any cost they were going to get us, then by gawd I'll be willing to bet he would.
And under those circumstances, you or I would do everything within our power to protect ourselves. Neither one of us would simply sit back and accept our fate was doomed, believing that person was so intent on killing us that they would succeed. We wouldn't do what Bush did, which was to ignore the warnings and do absolutely nothing to protect the nation he led.

But hey .. if you really feel that way .. here is some intel for you . . in LA, sometime this week .. . there is going to be a drive by shooting. It's going to be done by gang members. Now I expect that to be stopped ... .after all .. I narrowed it down to a week, gave you the city, and narrowed it down to one of the gangs there. That intel is 250 time more specific then was given to Bush. So there should be no problem right ?
I find that analogy rather absurd. You are basing a potential crime based on statistics and not on intelligence and comparing that with a terrorist attack which had a mountain of intelligence. Even so, L.A. police will be working vigilantly to prevent crime, whereas Bush did nothing.

And while I have no choice but to agree the PDB handed Bush was vague, he still could have taken some action. It did mention possible hijackings and it did mention New York. Clinton was also handed a PDB warning him of a possible attack, not as vague as Bush's, but he still took action and had airport security raised during the threat at some airports in the northeast. Did it thwart the attack? Who knows? Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. But the attack didn't go off as planned. Fast forward 3 years and now George Bush is in the White House, he does absolutely nothing to prevent an attack he knows is coming. And within little over an hour, 4 planes are hijacked and kamazied into the WTC and the Pentagon.

And to be clear, I'm not saying even had he done something, it would have been successful at thwarting the attack; I'm just amazed anyone can defend him doing absolutely nothing.


Oh and one other piece of information, show me one time that Bush ever blamed Clinton for the attacks of 9/11..... show Me one time where Bush was running around pointing fingers at Clinton for him inheriting the dot com bust. Yet here we are nearly 3 years after Obama takes office, and we are "still" hearing how it's Bush's fault .. . or the Republicans fault, or the tea party's fault .... Pardon me for saying this, but I think that speaks volumes as to the character of both of them.
Bush blaming clinton (and Reagan) for 9.11 ...

"They looked at our response after the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy." ~ George Bush, 8.30.2005

Bush blaming Clinton for the economy ...

"The American economy began slowing last summer." ~ George Bush, 3.27.2001

"When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession." ~ George Bush, 8.30.2005

"You know, I'm the President during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President." ~ George Bush, 12.1.2008

 
Post# 670 A loan is not a bailout.

As you recall I stated the FED bailed out the gamblers, I wasn't about TARP. Was it 16 trillion in loans ... definitely yes. Were the PDCF loans long term credit ... no, were the PDCF loans used long term ... YES.

Did I state by the way ... the FED bailed out gamblers with 16 trillion in secret long term loans or did I state the FED bailed out gamblers with 16 trillion secret loans? I don't consider the TAF loans very long term. The term was long enough to turn the gamblers fortunes around ... long enough, which in the end was the whole point of the FED bailing them out.

Did you think the FED tried to avoid and discourage the investigation so the public would lose faith ... was because all was rosy at the farm? Did they want people to know about the shady practices and junk backing loans?

So you think by stating the "company" mission policy of the FED ... you change what actually happened? Is that "honest"?

Read your post again and tell me anything you stated ... anything which supports the debate I was wrong!

That reply was empty ... and you finish with an insult. A no substance post declaring victory. Right wingers like you always pull that crap.

There were not $16 trillion in loans; that much is certain. As explained, the counting techniques employed for the $16 trillion figure were factored to reflect term, and therefore they loans in question amounted to about $1.39 trillion, if i remember correctly.

It was in no way an insult, just an honest observation made by assessing the content of your posts in regards to the subject at hand.
 
I've presented evidence of a bailout by the FED. Evidence of 16 Trillion in loans. Goldenboy you have not presented 1 shred of evidence to the contrary.

Nyah, Nyah, I win the debate and I'm smarter then you, and you have no knowledge of the industry ... is not evidence. As you purport to support honest debate and you will swoop in to challenge dishonesty, its disappointing to see you not present evidence to support your contentions.

I win is not evidence of supporting your debate.

You were given the evidence, and lacked the will to actually respond to anything i have stated; choosing instead to hide behind straw men as though they have any meaning.

It was not $16 trillion.

Page 146 of the GAO report outlines the actual loan amounts on a term adjusted basis.

GAO factored II.jpg

to which it is stated directly under that real amount:

Note: The dollar amounts borrowed for each loan were term-adjusted by multiplying the loan amount by the term to maturity for the loan and dividing by 365 days. Term to maturity is calculated as the difference between the original loan maturity date and the trade date and does not reflect repayments of loans that occurred before the original loan maturity date. Total borrowing is aggregated at the parent company level and generally includes borrowing by branches, agencies, subsidiaries, and sponsored ABCP conduits that we could identify. Total borrowing for each parent company consolidates amounts borrowed by acquired institutions following the completion of acquisitions. PDCF totals include credit extensions to affiliates of some primary dealers and TSLF totals includeloans under the TSLF Options Program (TOP).

Now please end your desperate attempt to save face, as this is really getting boring.

BTW, you were given adequate evidence from your own source. But because you failed to actually read the report, your argument failed with it.

Original Evidence
 
Last edited:
There were not $16 trillion in loans; that much is certain. As explained, the counting techniques employed for the $16 trillion figure were factored to reflect term, and therefore they loans in question amounted to about $1.39 trillion, if i remember correctly.

It was in no way an insult, just an honest observation made by assessing the content of your posts in regards to the subject at hand.

It is true that I'm not an expert in Economics. However common sense goes a long way. As I said I don't consider any of the loans "long term" but they were long enough to get these business back on their feet, through the efforts of the FED. The FED helped most of them succeed by accepting their junk.

Now none of these loans were long term and does 16 trillion translate to 3 trillion when considered like an auto loan? Probably, I'm not sure the way they rolled the PDCF loans over daily. What type of term are you trying to translate them into? So approach the term as you will, unless the investigators are lying (the FED agreed with the conclusions) there was 16 trillion in various terms, providing different benefits.
 
You were given the evidence, and lacked the will to actually respond to anything i have stated; choosing instead to hide behind straw men as though they have any meaning.

It was not $16 trillion.

Page 146 of the GAO report outlines the actual loan amounts on a term adjusted basis.

View attachment 67115539

to which it is stated directly under that real amount:



Now please end your desperate attempt to save face, as this is really getting boring.

BTW, you were given adequate evidence from your own source. But because you failed to actually read the report, your argument failed with it.

Original Evidence

Lmao, You just did it again ... you adjusted the term to dismiss the quantity of loans. So you get to adjust the term of the loan ... because why?

And why do you suppose ... now you got me laughing ... why do you suppose it was presented in adjusted term in the report? Think really hard.

16 trillion in loans do not go away because you put it :) in adjusted terms.

So if I go to my bank and borrow $36,500 for 1 day ... did I borrow $36,500 or did I borrow $100
So if I go to my bank and borrow $36,500 for 4 years ... did I borrow $9,125 or did I borrow $36,500

:) adjust the terms it changes reality.
 
This really is getting old, I am now convinced that you really aren't that smart as you say the same things over and over again all in hopes that if you say it often enough it will be accurate.
Uh-oh!



irony-meter.jpg



Bush did not have a trillion dollar deficit in 2009 unless he ran that deficit from Dallas.
Aside from the fact that Bush's budget ran trhough September, 2009, plus TARP, plus supplimentals for his wars, he's responsible for well over a trillion dollars, the FY2008 deficit also topped a trillion dollars.

Regarding 9/11, do you know the difference between direct and indirect costs? Of course not.
Well I've offered you many opportunities to show where in that GAO report it said the cost was above the $639B it stated was the "estimated loss" "to the United States," but you folded like a bad poker hand; I asked many times for you to show where it stated that $639B was not the total cost, but you ran away like a frightened schoolgirl; I challenged you to show where that report stated direct + indirect costs exceeded a trillion dollars, but you failed like the 2008 Lions.

Get over your BDS, it really is a sickness. If Bush ran against Obama I would vote for him again as I will take the Bush results vs. Obama's any day. Still waiting for you to put them side by side using nominal numbers.
Speaking of sickness ... I've posted those side-by-side comparisons about 5 times now and yet you're still waiting for them. :roll:
 
It is true that I'm not an expert in Economics. However common sense goes a long way. As I said I don't consider any of the loans "long term" but they were long enough to get these business back on their feet, through the efforts of the FED. The FED helped most of them succeed by accepting their junk.

Now none of these loans were long term and does 16 trillion translate to 3 trillion when considered like an auto loan? Probably, I'm not sure the way they rolled the PDCF loans over daily. What type of term are you trying to translate them into? So approach the term as you will, unless the investigators are lying (the FED agreed with the conclusions) there was 16 trillion in various terms, providing different benefits.

I take issue with the way the came up with $16 trillion, because in reality, it should have been closer to $40 trillion if we applied the same counting techniques across all lending facilities. Why did the GAO chose to go this route? Beats me, but at least they had the intellectual honesty to to put the loans into a proper context.

All in all, the Fed lent out about $1.39 trillion, and it was in no way "secret".

The real question is, do you understand why?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom