Today's Economic News

[whell]

Is is still possible to objectively state that current economic policies have our country on the right road?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38768328

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/2010-budget-deficit-at-1342-rb-1122983085.html?x=0&.v=1

[Boreas]

It's possible to place too much importance on temporary "disturbances in the force" but Paul Krugman predicted this on the basis that the stimulus was too small. In addition, the same thing happened during the Great Depression. Roosevelt's first "stimulus package was smaller than it should have been because of Republican opposition. When it became clear that it wasn't working FDR raised the bet and things began to turn around.

John

[noonereal]

Is is still possible to objectively state that current economic policies have our country on the right road?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38768328

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/2010-budget-deficit-at-1342-rb-1122983085.html?x=0&.v=1

if it is not, why is it not?

[merrylander]

Is it possible that the extra 12,000 were folks who got cut off then are re-applying since the period was extended?

[merrylander]

Then just maybe if all the corporations that are sitting on that $1.84 trillion in cash invested a little, plant upgrades, computer upgrades, salaries. things might begin to move.

The strange part is that all those wingnuts who say government is inefficient and private industry is better still want the government to fix things. If private industry is so damned efficient maybbe it is time they got the finger out and went to work.

[noonereal]

Then just maybe if all the corporations that are sitting on that $1.84 trillion in cash invested a little, plant upgrades, computer upgrades, salaries. things might begin to move.

The strange part is that all those wingnuts who say government is inefficient and private industry is better still want the government to fix things. If private industry is so damned efficient maybbe it is time they got the finger out and went to work.

Rob, we have not had the election yet.

[d-ray657]

Is is still possible to objectively state that current economic policies have our country on the right road?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38768328

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/2010-budget-deficit-at-1342-rb-1122983085.html?x=0&.v=1

Many economists and members of Congress pushed for a bigger stimulus package. Many of the dollars paid in stimulus have been spent, and credit is still hard to come by, making it more difficult to grow small businesses (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-26/fed-may-keep-rates-low-as-tight-credit-impedes-small-businesses.html). The GOP blocked the efforts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073001825.html) to provide aid to small businesses recently.

Bush was given an opportunity to pursue his economic agenda coming into his presidency, even with his coming into office with something considerably less than a mandate. On reflection that was probably a huge mistake, but there has been a tradition of allowing the person who won the White House an opportunity to implement the programs they campaigned on. Perhaps it was too much to expect similar cooperation following Obama's election. It certainly did not arrive. Instead, the right focused on a program of name-calling and misinformation. The GOP has used a record number of filibusters this term, doing everything they can to prevent Obama from accomplishing what he campaigned on.

When a package of programs is put together with a concrete plan to improve the economy, but results only in a watered down shadow of what was proposed it's not going to work as planned. What we then, is the administration was able to enough to prevent a depression, but not enough to provide the full measure of stimulus that the economy needed.

Unfortunately, enough people have bought into the lies and name-calling to poison the political environment against any more of the needed aid.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

Then just maybe if all the corporations that are sitting on that $1.84 trillion in cash invested a little, plant upgrades, computer upgrades, salaries. things might begin to move.

That's why "Stimulus 2.0" needs to be <<gasp>> new government programs like <<double gasp>> The New Deal. We've seen how well it works to dump piles of cash into corporate laps and then trust them to do the right thing.

The strange part is that all those wingnuts who say government is inefficient and private industry is better still want the government to fix things. If private industry is so damned efficient maybe it is time they got the finger out and went to work.

The Republicans broke all their toys and are mad a the Democrats for not buying them new ones.

[whell]

That's why "Stimulus 2.0" needs to be <<gasp>> new government programs like <<double gasp>> The New Deal. We've seen how well it works to dump piles of cash into corporate laps and then trust them to do the right thing.

I thought we already had "Stimulus 2".

The President was deriding Congress today for not passing additional stimulus legislation. It appears that in an election year, after passing a big ticket item like healthcare, the appetite for additional spending is about zero on both sides of the aisle.

[piece-itpete]

Thank goodness for that whell :)

My take, we're not going anywhere until the housing market settles down.

Pete

[whell]

Bush was given an opportunity to pursue his economic agenda coming into his presidency, even with his coming into office with something considerably less than a mandate. On reflection that was probably a huge mistake, but there has been a tradition of allowing the person who won the White House an opportunity to implement the programs they campaigned on. Perhaps it was too much to expect similar cooperation following Obama's election. It certainly did not arrive. Instead, the right focused on a program of name-calling and misinformation. The GOP has used a record number of filibusters this term, doing everything they can to prevent Obama from accomplishing what he campaigned on.

Opposition to the President's agenda has been relatively minor. Obama top legislative priorities were the Stimulus - and it seems like we've had 2 or 3 of these passed since 2009 - financial market reform and health care reform. They are now all passed. If anything, the biggest challenge that he had was keeping Democrat votes lined up to assure that these legislative goals became reality. When your party owns both houses of Congress and the White House, and your top legislative goals become law, saying that cooperation was lacking rings a bit hollow. It also ignores the fact that prior to the 2009 legislative term, Republican's were about as united as the Hatfields and the McCoys.

[whell]

It's possible to place too much importance on temporary "disturbances in the force" but Paul Krugman predicted this on the basis that the stimulus was too small. In addition, the same thing happened during the Great Depression. Roosevelt's first "stimulus package was smaller than it should have been because of Republican opposition. When it became clear that it wasn't working FDR raised the bet and things began to turn around.

John

The legislative machinery is already in place for Mr. Krugman and others to expand the financial impact of the stimulus if they choose. A number of provisions within HR 1 can be extended if the legislature chooses to do so. If all the provisions were extended, the final pricetag of HR 1 rises to over $3 Trillion dollars (!) per the CBO. This comes at the price of ballooning our national debt of course.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9988/hr1extendProvisionsRyanLtr.pdf

The question remains - are we really on the right path? Recently VP Binden suggested that we've spent $600 billion in stimulus dollars If the evidence suggests that current spending has been non - stimulative, how much more will it require? And how much more should we risk if the evidence suggests that its not having the intended impact?

[finnbow]

Unfortunately, I believe the GOP will do what it takes to ensure that economic recovery founders solely for their own political benefit.

[Boreas]

I thought we already had "Stimulus 2".

Not unless you count the loans to the auto industry as Stimulus 2.

The President was deriding Congress today for not passing additional stimulus legislation.

As well he should and the historic examples from the Depression and the learned advice of Nobel economists support him.

(And I think chastising might have been a better choice of words. Obama doesn't do derision.)

It appears that in an election year, after passing a big ticket item like healthcare, the appetite for additional spending is about zero on both sides of the aisle.

It appears that in an election year anything the political opposition does is characterized as politicking. Dems are afraid of the issue because Repubs are using it like a club.

John

[Boreas]

Opposition to the President's agenda has been relatively minor.

What?!?!?!?!

You can make a statement like that and expect to be taken seriously?

John

[whell]

What?!?!?!?!

John

You're right. I should have qualified this. Opposition to the President's agenda from the House and Senate has been relatively minor. Each piece of legislation had to be crafted to be acceptable to the various constituencies within the Democratic party. Having Republican votes for any of these 3 major pieces of legislation only mattered in as much as it 1) allowed for a certain number of "defections" from within the Democratic party when it came time to vote, and 2) bought some level of political cover to allow the President to claim that passage was "bi-partisan".

[piece-itpete]

The effects of government spending regarding the depression is not settled economic theory. Some argue it extended the depression.

Pete

[whell]

Not unless you count the loans to the auto industry as Stimulus 2.

John

The President comes from a school of thought that suggests that government spending is stimulative. So, taken in aggregate, the following pieces of legislation are "stimulative", whether or not they've been formally referred to as "stimulus" or a "stimulus plan":

Along with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, the President also instructed the US Treasury to purchase $15B extended Federal Funding of COBRA benefits originally authorized under the ARRA through mid - 2010, and has continued to extend Unemployment Benefits.

The 2nd Stimulus that I was referring to: This week, Congress approved and the President signed $26B in funding to the States, ostensibly to prevent teacher layoffs. This is after a number of states took billions in stimulus dollars in 2009 as part of the ARRA.

The government also continues to expand and spend additional funds on currently existing programs, pumping additional funds into the Economy. The Making Home Affordable initiative is an example.

[finnbow]

The effects of government spending regarding the depression is not settled economic theory. Some argue it extended the depression.

Pete

I'm not sure there's any such thing as "settled economic theory." As soon as something gets close to being settled, something upsets the apple cart. We can only hope that'll happen to Reaganomics soon. I (and David Stockman apparently) truly believe that the mess we're in traces its roots directly to the Gipper.

[piece-itpete]

Ah yes, once again agreeing with the guy who says Roosevelt and Obama are wrong, that stimulus is bad? ;)

Pete

[finnbow]

Ah yes, once again agreeing with the guy who says Roosevelt and Obama are wrong, that stimulus is bad? ;)

Pete

Of course, needing to apply a stimulus is bad. Not doing so is worse. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[merrylander]

I thought we already had "Stimulus 2".

The President was deriding Congress today for not passing additional stimulus legislation. It appears that in an election year, after passing a big ticket item like healthcare, the appetite for additional spending is about zero on both sides of the aisle.

Exactly what has the healthcare cost so far? Apart from big pharma's usual 10 - 12% yearly price hike. My wife's BP medication has risen by 12% per year so I wrote to Novartis. Thanked them for saving her life but asked if they planned on putting us in the poor house. Never heard back, guess I upset them by writing that in the last century doctors used leeches and in this century we have drug companies.

[piece-itpete]

Exactly what has the healthcare cost so far? Apart from big pharma's usual 10 - 12% yearly price hike. My wife's BP medication has risen by 12% per year so I wrote to Novartis. Thanked them for saving her life but asked if they planned on putting us in the poor house. Never heard back, guess I upset them by writing that in the last century doctors used leeches and in this century we have drug companies.

lolol!! Bam!

Pete

[noonereal]

What?!?!?!?!

You can make a statement like that and expect to be taken seriously?

John

LOL

That's what a little fox told him. :p

[noonereal]

Exactly what has the healthcare cost so far? Apart from big pharma's usual 10 - 12% yearly price hike. My wife's BP medication has risen by 12% per year so I wrote to Novartis. Thanked them for saving her life but asked if they planned on putting us in the poor house. Never heard back, guess I upset them by writing that in the last century doctors used leeches and in this century we have drug companies.

Big pharma give leeches a bad name.

[d-ray657]

Opposition to the President's agenda has been relatively minor. Obama top legislative priorities were the Stimulus - and it seems like we've had 2 or 3 of these passed since 2009 - financial market reform and health care reform. They are now all passed. If anything, the biggest challenge that he had was keeping Democrat votes lined up to assure that these legislative goals became reality. When your party owns both houses of Congress and the White House, and your top legislative goals become law, saying that cooperation was lacking rings a bit hollow. It also ignores the fact that prior to the 2009 legislative term, Republican's were about as united as the Hatfields and the McCoys.

How can you say that the opposition has been minor? The Republicans' use of personal holds and filibusters have stopped government agencies from running properly because they have deprived them of the people who would assume leadership positions; they have cut off unemployment benefits to people in the worst job market since the '30s; that have stopped aid to small businesses; they dragged the health care bill on for so long that other important parts of the plan were not even brought to the floor.

On top of this, the outright lies that have come out of the mouths of the republican leadership about the programs have created a public mood based on misinformation. I doubt anyone has mentioned at a tea party rally that most of the "bailout" money has been paid back, with interest. I doubt many tea partiers know that at least 90% of them actually saw their taxes reduced as part of the stimulus package. How many of them complaining about the "government mandate" to purchase health insurance know that it will save them money. Universal participation in health insurance, particularly to the extent that it brings younger people into the system, will reduce the per person costs for insurance. That's why the Republicans were hep on the plan in Massachusetts implemented by its Republican governor. At least they liked it until Obama proposed it.

No, when leaders of one party openly state that they want the president to fail in his efforts to revive the economy, one cannot describe their opposition as minor.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

How can you say that the opposition has been minor? The Republicans' use of personal holds and filibusters have stopped government agencies from running properly because they have deprived them of the people who would assume leadership positions; they have cut off unemployment benefits to people in the worst job market since the '30s; that have stopped aid to small businesses; they dragged the health care bill on for so long that other important parts of the plan were not even brought to the floor.

On top of this, the outright lies that have come out of the mouths of the republican leadership about the programs have created a public mood based on misinformation. I doubt anyone has mentioned at a tea party rally that most of the "bailout" money has been paid back, with interest. I doubt many tea partiers know that at least 90% of them actually saw their taxes reduced as part of the stimulus package. How many of them complaining about the "government mandate" to purchase health insurance know that it will save them money. Universal participation in health insurance, particularly to the extent that it brings younger people into the system, will reduce the per person costs for insurance. That's why the Republicans were hep on the plan in Massachusetts implemented by its Republican governor. At least they liked it until Obama proposed it.

No, when leaders of one party openly state that they want the president to fail in his efforts to revive the economy, one cannot describe their opposition as minor.

Regards,

D-Ray

No different than the Democrats levied against Bush for 8 years, and what the Repubs gave Clinton in the years prior to that. Its politics, and there's nothing at all unusual about it.

What was said, and what was accomplished are two different things. The President got his 3 central pieces of legislation through, had the votes to do it, and had the votes to override minority party opposition. Thus the legislative opposition was a small factor, but not so much so that his Obama's legislative centerpieces were derailed. For perspective, compare that to what happened when the prior occupant of the White House attempted to reform Social Security.

Don't forget the opposition from within his own party to elements of his agenda that needed to be dealt with, shall we say, creatively, and focus only on the opposition from the right. I'm suggesting that Obama's first term has so far been a legislative success, if passing a presidents agenda a measure of success - which I believe it is.

Now, can we get back to the question in the OP?

[noonereal]

No different than the Democrats levied against Bush for 8 years, and what the Repubs gave Clinton in the years prior to that. Its politics, and there's nothing at all unusual about it.



How can you say that? There has never been a time in my lifetime that the losing party in a national election has immediate launched (before even being swore in) an organized campaign to undermine the new president. (without regard to the countries welfare I might add)

[d-ray657]

No different than the Democrats levied against Bush for 8 years, and what the Repubs gave Clinton in the years prior to that. Its politics, and there's nothing at all unusual about it.

What was said, and what was accomplished are two different things. The President got his 3 central pieces of legislation through, had the votes to do it, and had the votes to override minority party opposition. Thus the legislative opposition was a small factor, but not so much so that his Obama's legislative centerpieces were derailed. For perspective, compare that to what happened when the prior occupant of the White House attempted to reform Social Security.

Don't forget the opposition from within his own party to elements of his agenda that needed to be dealt with, shall we say, creatively, and focus only on the opposition from the right. I'm suggesting that Obama's first term has so far been a legislative success, if passing a presidents agenda a measure of success - which I believe it is.

Now, can we get back to the question in the OP?

Your original question was whether we could really say the policies in place have us on the right track. I can get long-winded and obscure my point. Simply put, if Obama had been able to advance the type of stimulus that was needed rather than the watered down, discounted version that he had to settle for, we would be in better shape. Moreover, the current policies have created a HUGE cash reserve for businesses, but they are sitting on this portion of the economic recovery and not using it to put people back to work. The main thing standing in the way of a more robust recovery are the selfish interests of the GOP and their masters in the financial elite.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

How can you say that? There has never been a time in my lifetime that the losing party in a national election has immediate launched (before even being swore in) an organized campaign to undermine the new president. (without regard to the countries welfare I might add)

Funny. I seem to remember an election in 2000 that the "losing party" never got over, called the President illegitimate, Demonized Cheney and Rove from get go, and fumed over John Ashcroft, almost blocking his appointment as AG. That's just for starters. Given the equal split of 50 dems and 50 reps in the Senate, it appears that there was a full court press underway in early 2001 for the dems to recruit a repub over to their side of the aisle. At least on was a significant target - John McCain. It wasn't until two planes hit the twin towers that there was cooperation from the left side of the aisle. Meanwhile Bush tried mightily to work with the Democrats, starting with allowing Ted Kennedy a nearly free hand in penning the No Child Left Behind legislation, and he took a lot of crap from his own party for doing it.

Again - nothing new about any of this, really. Its the nature of the political beast.

Back to the question in the OP?

[whell]

Moreover, the current policies have created a HUGE cash reserve for businesses, but they are sitting on this portion of the economic recovery and not using it to put people back to work.

Can you post your source for this? Most of the business owners I speak to, admittedly small to medium size business owners, complain that they can't get capital, and if they can, its too expensive. I've seen businesses close because banks have pulled their lines for credit - due to the tightening of credit and forced changes in banking policy - and they couldn't get funding from other sources. In at least once case I've seen, a business owner cashed in his IRA's and 401(k) to keep his business afloat after losing his line of credit. Small businesses need credit lines to make ends meet, because many of their larger clients aren't paying their bills timely. Business owner tell me that they can't predict their labor costs due to lack of clarity on new federal policy, so they're not hiring anyone new, and only judiciously replacing individuals who leave their companies.

So, please post this source. It may only apply to the larger employers / businesses, I suspect, and this group comprises only a fraction of businesses / employers.

[noonereal]

Can you post your source for this? Most of the business owners I speak to, admittedly small to medium size business owners, complain that they can't get capital, and if they can, its too expensive. I've seen businesses close because banks have pulled their lines for credit - due to the tightening of credit and forced changes in banking policy - and they couldn't get funding from other sources. .


BINGO!!!!!!!

I had a line of credit for many years. Had not even drawn on it in three years as business had been great.. Never paid late. Only used it as a seasonal bridge.

Banks played Casino Night in the housing market and yanked it

[whell]

BINGO!!!!!!!

I had a line of credit for many years. Had not even drawn on it in three years as business had been great.. Never paid late. Only used it as a seasonal bridge.

Banks played Casino Night in the housing market and yanked it

Banks played by the rules imposed on them by shifting bank regs. With the advent of TARP, many banks were forced to take TARP funds, and then were directed by the FDIC to take on a portfolio of toxic assets. I've heard more than once that if banks wanted to hang on to their FDIC insurance, they had to play this game.

With toxic assets on their books, their underwriting requirement then had to change for their entire portfolio of loans.

[noonereal]

Banks played by the rules imposed on them by shifting bank regs. With the advent of TARP, many banks were forced to take TARP funds, and then were directed by the FDIC to take on a portfolio of toxic assets. I've heard more than once that if banks wanted to hang on to their FDIC insurance, they had to play this game.

With toxic assets on their books, their underwriting requirement then had to change for their entire portfolio of loans.

I am speechless.
(well not completely)
Capitalism/Corporatism only works for the masses with a strong central government. The government, yes the government saved the world economy and TARP was what it came up with. Not the best way maybe but way better than one could have hoped. A great success.

Explain how the government is responsible for no loans now.

Another question, when is the private sector responsible for their own actions?

baby needs a new pair of shoes now roll them! That is modern american finance.

[Fast_Eddie]

Is is still possible to objectively state that current economic policies have our country on the right road?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38768328

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/2010-budget-deficit-at-1342-rb-1122983085.html?x=0&.v=1

I suspect you don't really want an answer to your question. Is it possible? Of course, and I suspect you could make the argument yourself. The policies that took seven years to bankrupt America from a surplus will take some time to correct.

But really, I think you've made up your mind already. You don't like the persons making the decisions so you'll relish any bad economic news and instantly blame Obama for it. It's ironic since the economy is objectively much better than it was when Bush left office.

[Fast_Eddie]

No different than the Democrats levied against Bush for 8 years,

This is simply not true. If you're interested you could read these or any number of other articles that can easily be found with the google machine.

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/aug/14/filibuster-now-an-everyday-tool/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/analysis-republicans-sett_0_n_480801.html

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/record-breaking-senate-conservatives-use-filibuster-for-62nd-time-in-this-session-of-congress-58789162.html

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/

It would restore much of my faith in mankind if you were to research the statement you made and respond with some simple admission that you were incorrect.

[d-ray657]

Can you post your source for this? Most of the business owners I speak to, admittedly small to medium size business owners, complain that they can't get capital, and if they can, its too expensive. I've seen businesses close because banks have pulled their lines for credit - due to the tightening of credit and forced changes in banking policy - and they couldn't get funding from other sources. In at least once case I've seen, a business owner cashed in his IRA's and 401(k) to keep his business afloat after losing his line of credit. Small businesses need credit lines to make ends meet, because many of their larger clients aren't paying their bills timely. Business owner tell me that they can't predict their labor costs due to lack of clarity on new federal policy, so they're not hiring anyone new, and only judiciously replacing individuals who leave their companies.

So, please post this source. It may only apply to the larger employers / businesses, I suspect, and this group comprises only a fraction of businesses / employers.

Plenty of sources for this one. Google is your friend.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/hoarding-hiring-corporations-stockpile-mountain-cash/story?id=10250559

http://www.ajc.com/business/companies-hold-on-to-592804.html

http://www.bundle.com/everybodysmoney/Food-DrinkU-companies-large-cash-reserves-hiring-11971#/agdata_bbViz_getCatSpendData/U.S./0/0/0/0/201003/100_101_102_103_104_105

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/04/AR2010070403856.html

If you read between the lines of what the companies are saying in some of these - "until you put our puppets back in office, we're going to hold jobs hostage." Some of the companies made record profits, but aren't willing to hire or even pay dividends to investors.

I don't doubt that small businesses are having a hard time with tight credit. That's why the GOP filibuster is so troubling. They filibustered an aid package designed to get credit to small businesses. The GOP is the party of the very rich.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

If a small business owner needs a loan I suggest he/she apply at the nearest branch of TD Bank as they are making loans, You see TD is a wholly owned subsidiary of Toronto Dominion, a Canadian bank and thanks to smart regulation they did not acquire toxic assets as the big American banks did all on their own, no one forced them to do it. I believe that if one were to attempt to sell derivatives in the GWN they would wind up in jail as is only proper.

BTW the reason so many people were upset in 2000 was when SCCOTUS "appointed" Dubya as president.

[Fast_Eddie]

It would restore much of my faith in mankind if you were to research the statement you made and respond with some simple admission that you were incorrect.

You know, from time to time I've said things on here that were wrong. At least a few times it has been pointed out and I've said something to the effect "yeah, I guess I was wrong". I'm really proud of that.

You remember the episode of Happy Days when Fonzi was trying to say "I was wrong" but he couldn't get it out? It was funny. He would stumble over it "I was wrroooo". But could never get it out. Then at the end he did it. He said "I was wrong". The studio audience clapped and all was well in the world.

Fonzi is a caricature. It shouldn't be that hard for the rest of us.

[piece-itpete]

There's a good explaination - most of what the GOP did was popular, you guys didn't dare block it.

:D

Leave whell enough alone :D

Pete

[noonereal]

There's a good explaination - most of what the GOP did was popular, you guys didn't dare block it.

:D

Leave whell enough alone :D

Pete

yep emotion over intelect

[d-ray657]

It wasn't until two planes hit the twin towers that there was cooperation from the left side of the aisle.

Yes. 9/11 resulted in the most cynical opportunism imaginable to start carving away at the constitutional rights of the American people, and because of the state of shock the country was in at that time, it was well neigh impossible to stop any measure that was wrapped in national security.

P.S. What is the source of the statement that banks that didn't want it were forced to take TARP money?

Regards,

D-Ray

[Fast_Eddie]

Yes. 9/11 resulted in the most cynical opportunism imaginable to start carving away at the constitutional rights of the American people, and because of the state of shock the country was in at that time, it was well neigh impossible to stop any measure that was wrapped in national security.

So, you're with the terrorists.

[d-ray657]

So, you're with the terrorists.

If you say so, Mr. Cheney.:rolleyes:

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

It's not a difficult thing to understand - we were in the mist of a true national emergency. I have never seen soldiers standing guard in the US before, except for military bases.

Bush could've done nothing else. And the Dems have had every opportunity to change things back.

Pete

[whell]

P.S. What is the source of the statement that banks that didn't want it were forced to take TARP money?

Regards,

D-Ray

Here's one of many. Secretary Paulson told them that they had to take the funds "for their own good".

http://www.businessinsider.com/uncovered-tarp-docs-reveal-how-paulson-forced-banks-to-take-the-cash-2009-5

Then the toxic assets were "spread around", essentially gumming up the flow of credit for everyone.

[merrylander]

That link said nowt about the toxic assets, I believe you will find that the banks already 'owned' them. Near as I recall Paulson was Dubya's Secretary of the Treasury, no?

[whell]

That link said nowt about the toxic assets, I believe you will find that the banks already 'owned' them. Near as I recall Paulson was Dubya's Secretary of the Treasury, no?

The toxic asset transfers started later, by a few months. Remember that the institutions that owned these assets were failing and / or being liquidated by the FDIC. Once a bank closed was closed, its assets and liabilities were/are redistributed to "more solvent" banks, including the less attractive liabilities.

And yes, Paulson was President Bush's Treasury Sec.

[Fast_Eddie]

This is simply not true. If you're interested you could read these or any number of other articles that can easily be found with the google machine.

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/aug/14/filibuster-now-an-everyday-tool/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/analysis-republicans-sett_0_n_480801.html

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/record-breaking-senate-conservatives-use-filibuster-for-62nd-time-in-this-session-of-congress-58789162.html

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/

It would restore much of my faith in mankind if you were to research the statement you made and respond with some simple admission that you were incorrect.

Just wondered if this posted correctly. Um, sorry if this is a repost.

[Fast_Eddie]

^^I can see it on my computer. Do you guys see it?^^

[Fast_Eddie]

.bump.