Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44

Thread: Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

  1. #31
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Hey, it's only money, and the Good Reverend has so much of it.
    He should spread the wealth around

  2. #32
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,277

    Re: Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    He should spread the wealth around
    The good Rev hired Obama to do it.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #33
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    The good Rev hired Obama to do it.
    He thinks Obama is the Messiah

  4. #34
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,277

    Re: Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    He thinks Obama is the Messiah
    Don't you. /jumps aside in case of lightening bolt
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders View Post
    Stupidly ridiculous assumptions went into that number

    Source [NYTimes | Big Estimate, Worth Little, on Bailout ]



    This number isn't what the US government could possibly have to pay out, it's a tally of the worth of every asset in the entire financial system. Anybody who takes this seriously is just grasping at whatever they can find to support a position they already hold
    But still 2 trillion of that was claimed to have been spent...

    Remember... Every trillion dollars is about 3 k of tax dollars that YOU owe as an individual, when meanwhile these banks that have been 'bailed out' are recording RECORD PROFITS :O :Gasp:

    Do you hoestly think with the bare-minimum of 2 trillion dollars gone and spent would have been better off handed over to faceless bankers that are just trying to protect their bottom lines.... or do you think that the 6k for each individual in your household would have been put to better use if you had it in pocket?? Which option do you think would truthfully stimulate the economy??

    Worst yet this is the conversation when trying to find out where the money went : (This was from C-span, I'm just paraphrasing)
    Question : Do you feel that you've been transparent?
    Fed chairmen : Yes... we made a website.
    Question : Is this information of where the money went on the website?
    FC : Yes
    Qiuestion : actually that information is NOT on your website, so what happened to all the money.
    FC : We can't tell you.

    Then on the subject of auditing the printers of our currency :
    Question : what do you think about auditing the fed for the first time since 1913.
    Answer : If you audit the fed it would be a power grab by congress to take care of the printing of the money which the constitution says they were supposed to do in the first place... also the entire system would collapse if people saw our books.... there would be blood on the streets and martial law if that would happen.

    Seriously... no matter how much money was taken it was :
    a) Taken and given to the most fraudulent and unsustainable banks
    b) Went to the benefit of the same people that created the problems
    c) Does little more than to guarantee a relatively drastic level of inflation
    d) Is money taken directly from the tax payer at interest so that banks could 'free up' money to lend out more money AT INTEREST
    e) Does nothing to protect citizens homes.
    f) is detrimental to the economy
    g) If this was done by italians it would be called a mafia job, if a white guy did it it would be called fraud, if a black guy did it would be called robbery... if you were a prisoner it would be called rape (since I'm not saying that race has anything to do with this) that this was done by government we call it 'policy' and accept it without question... somehow that's seen as the 'patriotic' thing to do....

    So... how do you justify this banker takeover of our countries economy as being a 'GOOD' thing?????

  6. #36
    King of Videos
    dirtpoorchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    WA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,007

    Re: Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

    Is 23 tril with or without all the padding? After it passes all the nasty paddings for about 30% of the original pop up.
    I'm Finding it Harder to be a Gentleman, White Stripes ~ "You think I care about me and only me. When every girl needs help climbing up a tree."

  7. #37
    Norville Rogers
    Kernel Sanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,730

    Re: Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

    Wow Bman, whatever you're smoking, pass it this way

    Not a word of this has anything to do with what I posted


    What I posted is this

    Quote Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders View Post
    Stupidly ridiculous assumptions went into that number

    Source [NYTimes | Big Estimate, Worth Little, on Bailout ]

    This number isn't what the US government could possibly have to pay out, it's a tally of the worth of every asset in the entire financial system. Anybody who takes this seriously is just grasping at whatever they can find to support a position they already hold
    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    But still 2 trillion of that was claimed to have been spent...

    Remember... Every trillion dollars is about 3 k of tax dollars that YOU owe as an individual, when meanwhile these banks that have been 'bailed out' are recording RECORD PROFITS :O :Gasp:

    Do you hoestly think with the bare-minimum of 2 trillion dollars gone and spent would have been better off handed over to faceless bankers that are just trying to protect their bottom lines....

    Not sure where I said faceless bankers should have been the recipient of $2 trillion

    or do you think that the 6k for each individual in your household would have been put to better use if you had it in pocket?? Which option do you think would truthfully stimulate the economy??
    Not sure where I said the bailouts would stimulate the economy

    Worst yet this is the conversation when trying to find out where the money went : (This was from C-span, I'm just paraphrasing)
    Question : Do you feel that you've been transparent?
    Fed chairmen : Yes... we made a website.
    Question : Is this information of where the money went on the website?
    FC : Yes
    Qiuestion : actually that information is NOT on your website, so what happened to all the money.
    FC : We can't tell you.

    Then on the subject of auditing the printers of our currency :
    Question : what do you think about auditing the fed for the first time since 1913.
    Answer : If you audit the fed it would be a power grab by congress to take care of the printing of the money which the constitution says they were supposed to do in the first place... also the entire system would collapse if people saw our books.... there would be blood on the streets and martial law if that would happen.
    Where did this come from?

    Seriously... no matter how much money was taken it was :
    a) Taken and given to the most fraudulent and unsustainable banks
    b) Went to the benefit of the same people that created the problems
    c) Does little more than to guarantee a relatively drastic level of inflation
    d) Is money taken directly from the tax payer at interest so that banks could 'free up' money to lend out more money AT INTEREST
    e) Does nothing to protect citizens homes.
    f) is detrimental to the economy
    Agreed

    g) If this was done by italians it would be called a mafia job, if a white guy did it it would be called fraud, if a black guy did it would be called robbery... if you were a prisoner it would be called rape (since I'm not saying that race has anything to do with this) that this was done by government we call it 'policy' and accept it without question... somehow that's seen as the 'patriotic' thing to do....


    So... how do you justify this banker takeover of our countries economy as being a 'GOOD' thing?????
    Not sure where I talked about bankers at all, let alone called their actions a good thing

    Ya know, you're not in the same league as mikeey when it comes to utterly perplexing posts, but with some practice I thing you can give him a run for his money (<3 mikeey)
    Last edited by Kernel Sanders; 07-24-09 at 11:00 AM.

  8. #38
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Remember... Every trillion dollars is about 3 k of tax dollars that YOU owe as an individual, when meanwhile these banks that have been 'bailed out' are recording RECORD PROFITS :O :Gasp:

    Do you hoestly think with the bare-minimum of 2 trillion dollars gone and spent would have been better off handed over to faceless bankers that are just trying to protect their bottom lines.... or do you think that the 6k for each individual in your household would have been put to better use if you had it in pocket?? Which option do you think would truthfully stimulate the economy??
    Neither. You don't stimulate the economy through spending. Just do what you want to do. If everyone does that, then the economy will start responding to our needs.

    And profits are not a bad thing.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  9. #39
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Neither. You don't stimulate the economy through spending. Just do what you want to do. If everyone does that, then the economy will start responding to our needs.

    And profits are not a bad thing.
    Well, that all depends on your time frame. In the short run, an economy can be stimulated by spending, and this is a fact. In the long run however, an economy is stimulated by savings, in which the ability to finance capital expenditure increases. Capital goods, specifically the "tools to make goods", also need to experience gains in their overall efficiency to promote a greater instance of economic growth. This is achieved through innovations in technology.......... the entrepreneurial spirit!
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Neither. You don't stimulate the economy through spending. Just do what you want to do. If everyone does that, then the economy will start responding to our needs.
    I can't really argue with that... although I would add that when a section of the economy falls so deeply into fraud and/or corruption that it can no longer sustain itself, it must be allowed to fail

    And profits are not a bad thing.
    No not at all, it's not the profits that are bad, it's 'padded profits', fraudulent profits, and the attitude of do whatever it takes to get extra profits

    Quote Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders View Post
    Wow Bman, whatever you're smoking, pass it this way

    Not a word of this has anything to do with what I posted


    What I posted is this
    Which mirrored almost verbatim (what turned out to be a different article) that made the same point but continued to say that 2.x trillion dollars HAD IN FACT been spent.

    Not sure where I said faceless bankers should have been the recipient of $2 trillion
    Anybody who takes this seriously is just grasping at whatever they can find to support a position they already hold
    This implies that you support the bill and that anyone that opposes this is just 'grasping at whatever they can find to support a position they already hold'.

    Not sure where I said the bailouts would stimulate the economy
    By implying your support, it's also implied that you would expect the implied result of economic stimulus.


    Where did this come from?
    C-span coverage of senators asking questions of Bernanke over 2 seperate occasions... it's on record, but I simply paraphrased. (out of laziness to find the 2 specific occasions that back and forth represents). It was intended to illustrate ... I'm not even sure the word... but the type of teeth pulling you gotta go through to get any information about this...

    The point is : A NON-Governmental private, run for profit entity that hasn't been audited since it's inception when questioned on what it's doing with tax money says that they are transparent, but at the same time will not answer any direct questions on the subject, or will redirect the person to a brick wall. Worse, when threatened with audit (much like when the bailout was first talked about) the federal reserve threatans MARTIAL LAW IN AMERICA as well as THE COLLAPSE OF THE ECONOMY if things are not done their way.

    So... how do you want to call that : terrorism, robbery, extortion??? Bottom line these are complete criminals ... piont being you can search yourself for the video of bernanke questioned about bailout funds or something similar, and see just the rediculousness of these guys when they are confronted... seriously it's about comparable to a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar... and the stupid thing is we actually buy the story that he wanted to make sure that you didn't take them all.

    Sorry... /end rant

    Agreed






    Not sure where I talked about bankers at all, let alone called their actions a good thing

    Ya know, you're not in the same league as mikeey when it comes to utterly perplexing posts, but with some practice I thing you can give him a run for his money (<3 mikeey)
    Here's the logic :

    1 - The way things were phrased showed implied support for the bill and that there was no actual money spent
    2 - I thought it was the same article I had read just earlier (turned out to be a similarly worded, but different article) that said that 2.x (3 or 4) trillion had been spent.
    3 - The federal reserve commited an act of what amounts to a terrorist act, threatening a military takeover of the US... yet more publicly threatening an utter collapse of the economy... "2000 pts this week and 4000 pts next week" (about the DOW Jones)
    4 - The level of secrecy involved in this money which is tax payer money directly is another show of shady behavior gong on behind closed doors.

    So, while this things may SEEM unrelated, that are all parts of the same object and should be covered and discussed in a holistic way... this was first called a 'banker' bailout... and the private bank that prints the money is just the top dog of these banks and is secretly 'sorting out everything' for the 'publics' best interest???? And in SECRET at that?? and you seriously expect these guys that made it to the top by being cutthroat businessmen that would cut loose their own child if it meant extra profits for themselves to have the general best intersts at heart??

    Look, I am sorry I misconstrued your position... this is a VERY BIG issue to me, since this LITTERALLY represents the 'fascification' of america (I know that's not a word, but the meaning would be 'the act of turning fascist':P)

    Seriously though, 23 trillion dollars is actually quite easy with 'fractional reserve' banking, so, even IF only 800 billion dollars of taxpayer money was used, and that the banks can all leverage that out 10X (OR MORE) and create enough fake debt to pretty much buy up every asset in america... then move offshore and send paramilitary hit squads to take care of anyone that objects after there's nothing left. That's kinda like what the IMF does to third world countries on a regular.
    Last edited by BmanMcfly; 07-24-09 at 07:43 PM.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •