quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, yes and no.  It makes money for someone. Just like the $85 billion a month bond buying, someone is making money, but it isnt getting to the economy, but just like the war in Iraq, it looks like thriving economies on the paper.

Bill comes due sometime though. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, no, because there is no inflation at present, we are propping up banks and large corporations at the expense of all the american people, its that fuckin freemarket asswipe, as it really happens in the real world throughout recorded history.

All the while we let them take our money overseas, or offshore.

It is the largest wealth transference in the history of the world, and we have had some whoppers of our wealth transference to these guys since the founding of the republican party. Although, they tried to make up for some of it in the old days.  Now, they are freemarketers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Well, no, because there is no inflation at present, we are propping up banks and large corporations at the expense of all the american people, its that fuckin freemarket asswipe, as it really happens in the real world throughout recorded history.
All the while we let them take our money overseas, or offshore.
It is the largest wealth transference in the history of the world, and we have had some whoppers of our wealth transference to these guys since the founding of the republican party. Although, they tried to make up for some of it in the old days.  Now, they are freemarketers.

Mnotter - only you would argue that government intervention into the debt and liquidity markets is freemarketers.
Government intervention caused the debt bubble. Its distorting the markets again.
This has nothing to do with free marketers or conservatives. This is the obama administration protecting a bunch of dimocrat donors.
After the Savings & loan scandals (again significantly government caused) 1700 people went to jail. Widely viewed as republican supports.
After this housing bubble....no one has gone to jail.
And we're still shoveling them money.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Well, no, because there is no inflation at present, we are propping up banks and large corporations at the expense of all the american people, its that fuckin freemarket asswipe, as it really happens in the real world throughout recorded history.
All the while we let them take our money overseas, or offshore.
It is the largest wealth transference in the history of the world, and we have had some whoppers of our wealth transference to these guys since the founding of the republican party. Although, they tried to make up for some of it in the old days.  Now, they are freemarketers.

Mnotter - only you would argue that government intervention into the debt and liquidity markets is freemarketers.
Government intervention caused the debt bubble. Its distorting the markets again.
This has nothing to do with free marketers or conservatives. This is the obama administration protecting a bunch of dimocrat donors.
After the Savings & loan scandals (again significantly government caused) 1700 people went to jail. Widely viewed as republican supports.
After this housing bubble....no one has gone to jail.
And we're still shoveling them money.

As it pertains just to this last bubble/bust, it's not just the Obama Administration that is protecting donors, and it's not just Democrat donors being protected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Well, no, because there is no inflation at present, we are propping up banks and large corporations at the expense of all the american people, its that fuckin freemarket asswipe, as it really happens in the real world throughout recorded history.
All the while we let them take our money overseas, or offshore.
It is the largest wealth transference in the history of the world, and we have had some whoppers of our wealth transference to these guys since the founding of the republican party. Although, they tried to make up for some of it in the old days.  Now, they are freemarketers.

Mnotter - only you would argue that government intervention into the debt and liquidity markets is freemarketers.
Government intervention caused the debt bubble. Its distorting the markets again.
This has nothing to do with free marketers or conservatives. This is the obama administration protecting a bunch of dimocrat donors.
After the Savings & loan scandals (again significantly government caused) 1700 people went to jail. Widely viewed as republican supports.
After this housing bubble....no one has gone to jail.
And we're still shoveling them money.

As it pertains just to this last bubble/bust, it's not just the Obama Administration that is protecting donors, and it's not just Democrat donors being protected.

Well you're right Desi. The state of NY declined to prosecute. But then, thats a Dimocrat. The State of Connecticut - also. Dimocrat again.
The Department of Justice leaned hard on everyone saying this was a Federal matter - and pretty much only the Feds have the wherewithal to investigate complicated financial crimes. The DOJ has had 5 years to prosecute and has done nothing.
Regarding who is being protected - I have no question that the banks donate to both parties. However, the donations in 2008 were more than 2:1 in favor of democrats. Democrats were majority recipients from 1992 - 2009. Finally, both the chairmen of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were big donators to dimocrats. As were Citigroup, goldman sachs, Bank of America...
Regarding exacting fines:
Take a look at this:http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/10/total-campaign-contributions/
Biggest fine was what 3.5 billions? Same company got 50 billion in tarp money. I don't call that a fine I call it a cost of doing business.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

Biggest fine was what 3.5 billions? Same company got 50 billion in tarp money. I don't call that a fine I call it a cost of doing business.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

 

quote:

Biggest fine was what 3.5 billions? Same company got 50 billion in tarp money. I don't call that a fine I call it a cost of doing business.

JP Morgan/Chase is at 13 billion.  Dont know where you are getting your non-facts from, but they are easily and laughably disprovable.

It is cute to  tie contributions (not to individuals or even party) to TARP money.  Thats some ninjalike nutsacker skills.  (LOL).

We are earning money on TARP, and will be showing a profit on it.  About half has been paid back, and we will come out in the plus column.   

But geeze, it was Hank Paulson (W appointee) that created the three page TARP and along with W who advocated it in the most dire and in no uncertain terms (and who signed it) leaving it to Obama to administrate, that pulled the 'DIRE' card and got the payday for his friends at Goldman Sachs (a situation he created by the way, heavily as he invested them in toxic assets).

And when we look at all the other bailouts and interventions by the 'republicans' of W, Paulson, Bernanke, the convienient cretin Geithner (a very useful and inept nincompoop, he will say what you want him to say, no matter how absurd or untrue (real washington gold)), we see their 'invisible hand', AGAIN, as beforetimes, masterminding one of the largest transfers of wealth in the United States, and the world.