• 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!

"Too Big To Fail" "Welfare Queens"

Are These Banks The New "WELFARE QUEENS?"

  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
DaveFagan

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Senator Warren: Why Isn't Wall Street Paying Back Taxpayers For Being 'Too Big To Fail'? | ThinkProgress

"WARREN: So I understand that we’re all trying to get to the end of “too big to fail.” But my question, Mr. chairman, is until we do, should those biggest financial institutions be repaying the American taxpayer that $83 billion subsidy that they are getting?…It is working like an insurance policy. Ordinary folks pay for homeowners insurance. Ordinary folks pay for car insurance. And these big financial institutions are getting cheaper borrowing to the tune of $83 billion in a single year simply because people believe that the government would step in and bail them out. And I’m just saying, if they are getting it, why shouldn’t they pay for it?"

Senator Warren: Why Isn't Wall Street Paying Back Taxpayers For Being 'Too Big To Fail'? | ThinkProgress

Why do we pay this?

Is there something, or lots of things, we don't know about this?

Is Warren picking on Bernanke?

Is this "free money for the rich?

How can I get some? I'll spend mine locally.
 
They were never going to pay us back. That was the giveaway. Government RUSHED to throw our money at the people who caused the problems. They were figuratively tripping over themselves trying to throw our money at the jerks who acted irresponsibly and drove the system into the ground.

Then when the banks and wallstreet have theirs, the Republocrats go back to bitching at each other endlessly and doing nothing for the rest of us. That's why the economy to this day stinks, why our unemployment is still unreasonably high. We're not a bank or wallstreet, so government doesn't give a f' about us. So billions of our dollars, probably if you really looked at it you'd see it's in the trillions range, given away and we won't see dime one. And government, they may run their mouth about getting that money back; but they won't actually do it.

Huzzah Corporate Capitalism!
 
The money we give to welfare leeches, especially cumulatively over the years, is change in the cup compared to the bailout - which was still high, but we have wasted trillions of dollars on people who don't deserve it.

I can't sympathize for the crack hos and 19 year olds with 3 kids they can't afford.
 
Ikari said:
They were never going to pay us back. That was the giveaway. Government RUSHED to throw our money at the people who caused the problems. They were figuratively tripping over themselves trying to throw our money at the jerks who acted irresponsibly and drove the system into the ground.

Then when the banks and wallstreet have theirs, the Republocrats go back to bitching at each other endlessly and doing nothing for the rest of us. That's why the economy to this day stinks, why our unemployment is still unreasonably high. We're not a bank or wallstreet, so government doesn't give a f' about us. So billions of our dollars, probably if you really looked at it you'd see it's in the trillions range, given away and we won't see dime one. And government, they may run their mouth about getting that money back; but they won't actually do it.

Huzzah Corporate Capitalism!
Click to expand...

Really well stated, but what can we do about it? I, personally, feel helpless. If it weren't for the discussion boards, I'd feel completely screwed, but at least here we can inform, educate, whatever and Ol' Don Quixote gets his due. I think all our terrorism is internal and just used to subsidize the greatest Welfare Queen of all, the Military Offense Industry, in all its' many manifestations. Since 9-11, all the terrorists in the Big Media look like they were encouraged, setup, perhaps even, victimized by the FBI. The FBI's specialty seems to be arranging big media events like Meth labs where the FBI supplied the equipment and formulas and organized the bust as the first batch is finished to the tune of maximum TV cameras, or terrorists that some FBI informer encouraged groups by suggesting they could get them bombs, missiles, etc., and again big TV cameras for maximum exposure. Seems like entrapment to me, but what the hell do I know?
 
America has a pay to play system of gov't. We pretend that it is a representative democracy, or democratic republic, akin to that described by the Constitution, yet it is no longer that at all. We now have one president, 535 congress critters and nine robed umpires calling the shots for about 310,000,000 folks. To assert that any particular industry is getting "special" treatment ignores the basic fact that all of them now do. Elected officials, especially at the federal level, require massive campaign funding to get and keep their positions of power.

Whoever supplies these huge amounts of campaign funds will indeed expect a return on that "investment", one would be insane to expect otherwise. If I paid you $20 to clean my porch, I have every right to expect you to do just that. The same is true of an industry giant, if they give a campaign $2 million, then they fully expect some reurn on that expense. You will never find the letter, memo or transcript of that "deal", but rest assured it is there - often money is given to BOTH candidates, just to be sure in a close race.
 
Gipper said:
The money we give to welfare leeches, especially cumulatively over the years, is change in the cup compared to the bailout - which was still high, but we have wasted trillions of dollars on people who don't deserve it.

I can't sympathize for the crack hos and 19 year olds with 3 kids they can't afford.
Click to expand...
I ain't seen JPMorgan Chase spending any excess monies in my neighborhood.
My only argument here is that, at least the crack "ho" with the 3 kids spends her money in the local economy to her dealer for Meth and her dealer for baby things. She's good for the local economy and JPMorganChase is not.
 
DaveFagan said:
Really well stated, but what can we do about it? I, personally, feel helpless. If it weren't for the discussion boards, I'd feel completely screwed, but at least here we can inform, educate, whatever and Ol' Don Quixote gets his due. I think all our terrorism is internal and just used to subsidize the greatest Welfare Queen of all, the Military Offense Industry, in all its' many manifestations. Since 9-11, all the terrorists in the Big Media look like they were encouraged, setup, perhaps even, victimized by the FBI. The FBI's specialty seems to be arranging big media events like Meth labs where the FBI supplied the equipment and formulas and organized the bust as the first batch is finished to the tune of maximum TV cameras, or terrorists that some FBI informer encouraged groups by suggesting they could get them bombs, missiles, etc., and again big TV cameras for maximum exposure. Seems like entrapment to me, but what the hell do I know?
Click to expand...

Good points. What we will see very soon is Obama putting it to the common man, making cuts in "essential services" to "prove" that gov't must remain massive or even increase to "provide needed services". We all know that this is BS, yet we are powerless to change it. Taking away $85 billion is chump change at the scale of federal spending, yet "not one dime" (to use Obama speak) will be taken from these perks offered to the rich campaign donors. Did you know that congress spent $90 billion "extra", yep over the budget, in the just first month of this year alone? $30 billion for UI benefit extension and $60 billion for Sandy storm relief. If they had simply said "sorry but we cannot fund anything, unless we must cut air traffic controllers, let prisoners loose, fire border guards and lay off meat inspectors" then debate MIGHT shift to this moronic give away nonsense to campaign donors, but as long as money can be simply borrowed "for needed things" this will continue.
 
Ikari said:
They were never going to pay us back. That was the giveaway. Government RUSHED to throw our money at the people who caused the problems. They were figuratively tripping over themselves trying to throw our money at the jerks who acted irresponsibly and drove the system into the ground.

Then when the banks and wallstreet have theirs, the Republocrats go back to bitching at each other endlessly and doing nothing for the rest of us. That's why the economy to this day stinks, why our unemployment is still unreasonably high. We're not a bank or wallstreet, so government doesn't give a f' about us. So billions of our dollars, probably if you really looked at it you'd see it's in the trillions range, given away and we won't see dime one. And government, they may run their mouth about getting that money back; but they won't actually do it.

Huzzah Corporate Capitalism!
Click to expand...
This was cronyism...but not capitalism. Capitalism would have let the banks suffer the national consequences of their irresponsible business practices. And lets be honest...this wasn't the banks...and it wasn't the banks and the fed...it was the banks, the fed, and individuals with their irresponsible borrowing. The housing bubble was created by a lot of factors, but excusing (or ignoring) the role individuals played is just wrong.

The banks should have been told to correct this problem, adjust their business practices, work with those that already made those horrible loan choices, or go under. They should have pulled all FDIC guarantees. Some banks would have gone under, a lot of investors would have taken it in the ass...but we would have been at least 6 years into recovery by now. As it is...by bailing out the banks and by not letting the housing market correct itself, we STILL haven't seen rock bottom yet.
 
VanceMack said:
This was cronyism...but not capitalism. Capitalism would have let the banks suffer the national consequences of their irresponsible business practices. And lets be honest...this wasn't the banks...and it wasn't the banks and the fed...it was the banks, the fed, and individuals with their irresponsible borrowing. The housing bubble was created by a lot of factors, but excusing (or ignoring) the role individuals played is just wrong.

The banks should have been told to correct this problem, adjust their business practices, work with those that already made those horrible loan choices, or go under. They should have pulled all FDIC guarantees. Some banks would have gone under, a lot of investors would have taken it in the ass...but we would have been at least 6 years into recovery by now. As it is...by bailing out the banks and by not letting the housing market correct itself, we STILL haven't seen rock bottom yet.
Click to expand...

Cronyism and Corporate Capitalism are pretty much the same thing. Free Market Capitalism would have let these banks suffer the consequences of their actions. But Corporate Capitalism will bail them out at the expense of the People.
 
The WH is funding the banks to inflate the capital markets to make it look there is a recovery when there is not. What you gain from it is homeowners see the value of their homes artificially lifted above what supply and demand would value them at in a free market.
 
DaveFagan said:
I ain't seen JPMorgan Chase spending any excess monies in my neighborhood.
My only argument here is that, at least the crack "ho" with the 3 kids spends her money in the local economy to her dealer for Meth and her dealer for baby things. She's good for the local economy and JPMorganChase is not.
Click to expand...

She's spending money other people would have spent if it weren't taken away from them to give to her. She's rewarded for being a societal failure and others are punished for success. She's only "good" for the local economy because she's been artificially sustained on the backs of others who would have been good mostly on their own.
 
Ikari said:
Cronyism and Corporate Capitalism are pretty much the same thing. Free Market Capitalism would have let these banks suffer the consequences of their actions. But Corporate Capitalism will bail them out at the expense of the People.
Click to expand...
Calling it 'corporate capitalism' makes for a great rallying cry...but its not an accurate term. Calling for handouts to the poor because the banks "got theirs" also makes for wonderful populist rhetoric, but all that does is exacerbates the problem. To boot...it is also just plain wrong. The bank bailouts don't impact the poor. The poor aren't PAYING income taxes.

Don't get me wrong...I agree completely that the bailouts were wrong. I felt that way when they were first promoting the bank bailouts. Dems and reps have both been in the banks and brokers pockets for so long they can build a home out of lint. Everyone played a role. I don't think we have the fiscal discipline to do what needs to be done. Long and short of it...we just keep building that debt pile higher and higher and when it starts to lean one way or the other we just keep propping it up. Eventually...something really really bad is going to happen and its going to make what we have recently faced look like a picnic.
 
Fisher said:
The WH is funding the banks to inflate the capital markets to make it look there is a recovery when there is not. What you gain from it is homeowners see the value of their homes artificially lifted above what supply and demand would value them at in a free market.
Click to expand...
Its not 'the WH'...its both houses of congress and the WH and it has been going on for a looooooooong long time.
 
tessaesque said:
She's spending money other people would have spent if it weren't taken away from them to give to her. She's rewarded for being a societal failure and others are punished for success. She's only "good" for the local economy because she's been artificially sustained on the backs of others who would have been good mostly on their own.
Click to expand...

In her defense though she can make more from Welfare than in the market place because of low wages and extended gov assistance. By the time you pay for child care (expensive), fuel, lunches, work clothing and health insurance your wages are less than if you didn't work.
 
grip said:
In her defense though she can make more from Welfare than in the market place because of low wages and extended gov assistance. By the time you pay for child care (expensive), fuel, lunches, work clothing and health insurance your wages are less than if you didn't work.
Click to expand...
How does ANY of that equate to 'my' problem...or 'your' problem'...or the governments problems? Or for that matter your grandkids problem since eventually they will be the ones stuck paying the debt. Perhaps if we weren't so eager to bail people out for hard problems they would be a little wiser about making life decisions.
 
DaveFagan said:
Senator Warren: Why Isn't Wall Street Paying Back Taxpayers For Being 'Too Big To Fail'? | ThinkProgress

"WARREN: So I understand that we’re all trying to get to the end of “too big to fail.” But my question, Mr. chairman, is until we do, should those biggest financial institutions be repaying the American taxpayer that $83 billion subsidy that they are getting?…It is working like an insurance policy. Ordinary folks pay for homeowners insurance. Ordinary folks pay for car insurance. And these big financial institutions are getting cheaper borrowing to the tune of $83 billion in a single year simply because people believe that the government would step in and bail them out. And I’m just saying, if they are getting it, why shouldn’t they pay for it?"

Senator Warren: Why Isn't Wall Street Paying Back Taxpayers For Being 'Too Big To Fail'? | ThinkProgress

Why do we pay this?

Is there something, or lots of things, we don't know about this?
Click to expand...

The banks are essentially part of our government. Banks are how money is created, and taxes are how money is destroyed.

So consider these subsidies to be just another tax. The price we pay for this style of government we have. While we're at it, we should also start considering our health care expenditures to be a tax now too. The price we pay for to government for its broad promises that everyone will get treated.

Is this "free money for the rich?
Click to expand...

Yes, in a sense, for the rich bankers, but that's how our monetary/banking system works.

How can I get some? I'll spend mine locally.
Click to expand...

Hahahahahaha.
 
Last edited:
grip said:
In her defense though she can make more from Welfare than in the market place because of low wages and extended gov assistance. By the time you pay for child care (expensive), fuel, lunches, work clothing and health insurance your wages are less than if you didn't work.
Click to expand...

Which is part of the reason why I think welfare is intentionally designed to create and perpetuate dependence upon the government. The problem you mention could be easily overcome by creating a program that turns welfare recipients (largely high school drop-outs or (occasionally) graduates/GED earners w/no college education or marketable skills) into highly-skilled potential workers for in-demand fields....or a program that doesn't perpetually reward you for having children you can't afford by increasing benefits each time you pop one out.
 
grip said:
In her defense though she can make more from Welfare than in the market place because of low wages and extended gov assistance. By the time you pay for child care (expensive), fuel, lunches, work clothing and health insurance your wages are less than if you didn't work.
Click to expand...

This is not a sign that wages are too low. It's a sign that assistance is too high.

Assistance is supposed to be just that - assistance. It's not meant to be 100% of what you need, as much as you need. I remember the days when welfare, food stamps, etc. was designed to accentuate your income, not replace it. We need more of those days.

I know all too well about "real" wages involved with people who work small-time jobs and qualify for assistance. I can understand why they may like it, but I'm arguing on behalf of the taxpayer I am, not the leech they are.
 
VanceMack said:
How does ANY of that equate to 'my' problem...or 'your' problem'...or the governments problems? Or for that matter your grandkids problem since eventually they will be the ones stuck paying the debt. Perhaps if we weren't so eager to bail people out for hard problems they would be a little wiser about making life decisions.
Click to expand...

It's your problem as long as you're a part of society, whether it affects you are not. You don't sound eager to help anybody but yourself. ;)
 
Regardless of your position on the subject you must admit that it is long, long, long overdue for this discussion in Washington. Bless Senator Warren. Neither party, nor their leaders had the balls to lead this discussion in earnest. The President of the United States damned sure didn't have the balls to lead this discussion, Wall Street sure as hell would never bring it up.

What a breath of fresh air in Washington! Open government, voice of the people. Rock on, Ms. Warren!
 
tessaesque said:
Which is part of the reason why I think welfare is intentionally designed to create and perpetuate dependence upon the government. The problem you mention could be easily overcome by creating a program that turns welfare recipients (largely high school drop-outs or (occasionally) graduates/GED earners w/no college education or marketable skills) into highly-skilled potential workers for in-demand fields....or a program that doesn't perpetually reward you for having children you can't afford by increasing benefits each time you pop one out.
Click to expand...


I completely agree with this statement, except finding businesses that will pay more and produce more jobs that someone on a lower level could obtain. Not everyone is going to have the ability to get extra training, no matter what. It's a self perpetuating problem when gov subsidizes the wealthy and the poor leaving the middle to get hammered into oblivion. We're quickly approaching the point of no return with gov debt, spending and increasing dependents and will have to face the music on all levels.
 
grip said:
It's your problem as long as you're a part of society, whether it affects you are not. You don't sound eager to help anybody but yourself. ;)
Click to expand...
I help more people than you can imagine...by choice. I don't believe in pissing good money away after bad...no. I also don't believe in rewarding stupid and negligent behavior, be that banks, brokerage houses, or individuals. I absolutely believe in helping those that are active participants in improving their lives...hands up vs hands out.
 
At this point, it is interesting to note that there are "0" votes for the poor as "WELFARE QUEENS." Maybe people are beginning to catch on. We could use another thousand Elizabeth Warrens in the Gov't. Don't ya' think?
 
VanceMack said:
I help more people than you can imagine...by choice. I don't believe in pissing good money away after bad...no. I also don't believe in rewarding stupid and negligent behavior, be that banks, brokerage houses, or individuals. I absolutely believe in helping those that are active participants in improving their lives...hands up vs hands out.
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement. We created a poverty driven social class on the bottom out of ignorance. And they are also responsible for their situation on a personal level. But pointing fingers isn't helping solve the crisis. The gov will start to cut those people off eventually and then this country will bleed. What is the answer? Let it happen? It will affect you then I'd almost guarantee it.
 
grip said:
I agree with this statement. We created a poverty driven social class on the bottom out of ignorance. And they are also responsible for their situation on a personal level. But pointing fingers isn't helping solve the crisis. The gov will start to cut those people off eventually and then this country will bleed. What is the answer? Let it happen? It will affect you then I'd almost guarantee it.
Click to expand...
Pointing fingers is just fine as long as you are pointing it at the RIGHT people. In order to SOLVE a problem you have to first IDENTIFY the problem. Proclaiming the innocence of the "Welfare Queen" (to include all citizens acting reckless and irresponsible running around with their hands out because its not FAIR) while berating the banks or the feds doesn't address the WHOLE problem. There is a complete mindset change that MUST happen. Feeding one problem while ignoring the other is irresponsible at best and corrupt at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom