Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:03 am



Reply to topic  [ 219 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
 Financial Stability Plan 
Author Message
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Financial Stability Plan
They kept delaying it, talk about transparency, and then THIS is all the information we get?!?

Sheesh, not good.

_________________
Image


Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:03 pm
Profile WWW
The Original
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:19 am
Posts: 9808
Location: Suisse
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
Well as I understood it they want to make a bad bank for up to 1000b USD toxic papers and another
500b USD for credits and help for house owners etc.


Though i first want to see how they want to get private investors to give money for the Bad Bank. I
sooooo dont see that gonna work.

_________________
Libs wrote:
FILMO, I'd rather have you eat chocolate syrup off my naked body than be a moderator here.


Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:38 pm
Profile
The Original
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:19 am
Posts: 9808
Location: Suisse
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
So what the financial sector "got" so far

-700b USD (350b first help and the second 350b)
-Up to 1000b USD for the Bad Bank and 500b of it for sure as I did understand.
-500b USD help from the FED and I heard they have an option to pump another 500b (for credits for houseowners companies etc.)


-So Financial sector potentialy 1700b
-Houseowners and other credits potentialy 1000b
-That makes 2700b direct and indirect for financial sector.


Thats about right?

_________________
Libs wrote:
FILMO, I'd rather have you eat chocolate syrup off my naked body than be a moderator here.


Last edited by FILMO on Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:50 pm
Profile
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
Good article on what we do know about the stability plan.

Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The following is an overview of the financial stability plan U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will outline in a speech at 11 a.m. EST.

A copy of the overview was obtained by Reuters.

Today, the Obama Administration unveiled a comprehensive Financial Stability Plan that will bring the full force of the federal government together in partnership with the private sector to stabilize our financial system and open up the flow of credit that families and businesses depend on to keep our economy strong.

Without a powerful Economic Recovery Act, too many Americans will lose their jobs and too many businesses will fail. But, unless we restore the flow of credit, and repair our financial system, the recession will be deeper and longer, causing even more damage to families and businesses across the country.

Building on President Obama's commitment to "do whatever it takes" to stabilize our financial system and protect consumers, (U.S. Treasury) Secretary Geithner made it clear that the response to the financial crisis must be comprehensive and forceful, and that action has to be sustained until financial recovery is firmly established.

Along with new programs to prevent home foreclosures, restore confidence in the markets and create public-private partnerships to boost lending, the Financial Stability plan will institute a new era of accountability, transparency and conditions on financial institutions receiving funds.

The Plan will do four things:

1. To stabilize the system and restore confidence in our markets, for the first time ever federal bank regulators will come together to institute uniform standards to help clean up and strengthen banks, and conduct "stress tests" to ensure the nation's largest banks can withstand a worsening economy. Those banks that need it will be given a capital buffer to ensure they can keep lending to families and businesses until they can attract additional private capital and weather economic downturns.

2. To revitalize lending and increase much-needed credit flowing to consumers and businesses, Treasury and the Fed are creating a new consumer business lending initiative to leverage up to $1 trillion to kick-start the secondary lending markets, which will bring down borrowing costs for responsible borrowers and help get credit flowing again.

3. To get financial markets working again, we will create a new Public-Private Investment Fund which provide government capital and financing to leverage private capital to buy up the "toxic assets" that are dragging down lending. This would allow financial institutions to cleanse their balance sheets while letting private sector buyers determine the price for previously illiquid assets.

4. To keep people in their homes and curb the housing crisis, Treasury will work with the Federal Reserve to commit $50 billion to reduce monthly payments and establish loan modification guidelines for government and private programs. The Financial Stability plan will also require all firms receiving federal funds participate in foreclosure mitigation plans to stem the housing crisis.

Access to government resources is a privilege not a right and comes with tough new conditions and responsibilities. We need to earn the public's trust that those who were not responsible for this crisis aren't bearing a bigger burden than those who were.

To increase transparency and accountability to protect taxpayers, Treasury will:

-- Launch a new Website, FinancialStability.gov, to detail where federal funds are going and whether they are succeeding in stabilizing the financial system and promoting new lending, including posting all contracts on the Internet.

-- Require banks to show how government assistance will expand lending and how they intend to use taxpayer dollars.

-- Restrict dividends, stock repurchases and acquisitions to provide assurance that all taxpayer money will go to promote lending until that money is paid back.

-- Limit executive compensation, restrict golden parachutes and require disclosure of luxury spending provisions so the public can hold them accountable.

_________________
Image


Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:21 pm
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
The fact that some of the banks are trying to give the money back now that Obama wants to limit their salaries to $500K gives me pause about any more bank bailouts.


Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:54 pm
Profile WWW
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
Nothing to do with salaries, heck, some of them are accepting $1 salaries until the bank is turned around. Has everything to do with the extra regulation the government attaches to the money.

_________________
Image


Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:06 pm
Profile WWW
Cream of the Crop
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:04 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Citizens Bank Park
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
Beeblebrox wrote:
The fact that some of the banks are trying to give the money back now that Obama wants to limit their salaries to $500K gives me pause about any more bank bailouts.

Our company has turned down many state government grant offers because of the strings they come attached with.

_________________
Let's go Phillies.


Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:13 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
Krem wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:
The fact that some of the banks are trying to give the money back now that Obama wants to limit their salaries to $500K gives me pause about any more bank bailouts.

Our company has turned down many state government grant offers because of the strings they come attached with.


If your company had to choose between complete collapse and solvency from a bailout, would your company take the strings? Remember that the banks were begging for the money that they now say they don't really need.


Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:15 pm
Profile WWW
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
Begging for an influx in capital, not a whole litany of regulations (not that I'm saying they don't need or shouldn't have regulations).

I've heard many experts say that one of the best ways to fix the banking issue is to buy stock, influx the banks with capital, capital needed to fix their balance sheets. The beauty is, there is little risk, it becomes a giant loan, taxpayers get paid back in time, possibly make money.

That as opposed to this plan, which puts a whole lot of risk onto tax payers, sticks us subsidizing the balance sheet fix for the toxic assets that are dragging down their equity. I just don't get the plan, seems like we're taking way too much risk to do something that could be done otherwise.

_________________
Image


Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:24 pm
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
Eagle wrote:
Begging for an influx in capital, not a whole litany of regulations (not that I'm saying they don't need or shouldn't have regulations).


That they were begging for money with no strings attached goes without saying. Heck, that's what the Bush administration wanted to give them.

The problem here is that they were claiming that the world was going to end if they didn't get this money. Now that the govt wants to limit executive pay salary, they say they don't need the money anymore and want to give it back.

Quote:
That as opposed to this plan, which puts a whole lot of risk onto tax payers, sticks us subsidizing the balance sheet fix for the toxic assets that are dragging down their equity. I just don't get the plan, seems like we're taking way too much risk to do something that could be done otherwise.


The hilarious thing here is that the Republican "free market" plan was essentially to nationalize the banking system, having the government buy up equity in failed banks.

The Obama plan is to basically guarantee the toxic assets so that private investors have the incentive to buy up the bank stock and introduce capital that way.

I don't think either plan is particularly good, but the Bush plan was the socialism that Republicans have turned around and decried in the Obama plan.


Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:53 pm
Profile WWW
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
I don't think you understand fully the impact of this plan.

Buying bank stock gives the US taxpayer equity for the money they are lending these banks, while at the same time feeding them capital. The end result for the taxpayer is likely a slight gain in about 4-6 years. Very little risk, very little money spent (if any) in the long run.

The Geithner plan uses the taxpayer money to SUBSIDIZE the purchase of toxic assets. What this means is:

- A bank has a toxic asset of $10m on the books.
- A private investor has no interest in the asset because the risk doesn't match the price.
- A bank has no desire to sell because the value is artificially low.
- Government subsidizes the asset to a tune of $2m.
- Investor now offers $11m, only has to pay $9m. Bank gets better value, investor gets an even better deal, everyone is happy, everyone EXCEPT the taxpayer, who just gave away money with no hope or possibility of return.

This is only one aspect of the bailout, but it's a scary one, and it's one of the many examples of why this plan was almost universally panned. It may work, but it's a grossly expensive way of doing something which could be done with far less risk, and at a much lower taxpayer expense. Furthermore, they aren't putting the $$ required to clean the balance sheets fully (about $2 trillion), so we get banks that are 'almost' solvent. Great!

Failure to re-capitalize these banks will lead to us being Japan part deux.

_________________
Image


Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:33 pm
Profile WWW
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
Furthermore,

The fact that you support this means you really don't understand what's going on. This IS TARP part two. TARP failed because they tried to dump money to banks, but did so in a transparent way, buying crap for cash, and people threw up their hands and said "wait, stop that!" And rightfully so!

This plan tries to dance around what they are really doing, quantify it differently, give no hard numbers, and do the same: buy crap for cash, throw money at the problem. Here are some fun quotes from the NY Times:

NY Times wrote:
In the end, Mr. Geithner largely prevailed in opposing tougher conditions on financial institutions that were sought by presidential aides, including David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, according to administration and Congressional officials.

Mr. Geithner, who will announce the broad outlines of the plan on Tuesday, successfully fought against more severe limits on executive pay for companies receiving government aid.

He resisted those who wanted to dictate how banks would spend their rescue money. And he prevailed over top administration aides who wanted to replace bank executives and wipe out shareholders at institutions receiving aid.

Because of the internal debate, some of the most contentious issues remain unresolved.


I'll say it now: This plan will be re-worked, it will not be instituted as planned, it's simply too awful.

_________________
Image


Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:58 pm
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
Eagle wrote:
Buying bank stock gives the US taxpayer equity for the money they are lending these banks, while at the same time feeding them capital. The end result for the taxpayer is likely a slight gain in about 4-6 years. Very little risk, very little money spent (if any) in the long run.


Wow, listen to defender of huge government socialism (just so long as Republicans are doing it - because man, their track record of leadership on the economy is so staggeringly awesome).

Since when is buying up stock from nearly insolvent investment banks with billions in debt and toxic assets a "very little risk"? You'd think these rich private investors would be clamoring for a piece of that action. Geez, it's no wonder Republicans ran the economy into the ground.

Quote:
The fact that you support this means you really don't understand what's going on.


I don't support this.


Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:39 pm
Profile WWW
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
The investment needed is Trillions, what investor, besides the government, can pull together that kind of money? None, it's an impossibility.

This is not a good situation to be in, there is no easy way out. I don't like the government taking stake in banks, but considering the options, it's the best way out. As to why it has such less risk:

For one, there is a CHANCE we get our money back. That alone is far better than the proposed plan. Secondly, by injecting billions into these banks, you're assuring they won't fail, so you retain some equity at minimum. If the banks then regulate themselves properly and use the new found equity to begin repairing their balance sheets, this situation VERY SLOWLY goes away, and the taxpayers get all their money back, plus a healthy return.

_________________
Image


Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:30 am
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
Eagle wrote:
For one, there is a CHANCE we get our money back. That alone is far better than the proposed plan. Secondly, by injecting billions into these banks, you're assuring they won't fail, so you retain some equity at minimum.


The banks were already worth billions, and they blew it. You're saying they WON'T blow it with free taxpayer money? Didn't they already take that money and turn around and pay out $18 billion in bonuses? Yeah, these are people who learn valuable lessons from failure.

Quote:
If the banks then regulate themselves properly and use the new found equity to begin repairing their balance sheets, this situation VERY SLOWLY goes away, and the taxpayers get all their money back, plus a healthy return.


First of all, regulate themselves? Are you kidding?

Second, I really, really wish that the people who got it so goddamn wrong on the economy over the last 8 years would stop making predictions. Remember when the $1.5 trillion in Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves by increasing revenue to the government? How'd that work out? I mean seriously. After the GOP racked up $6 trillion in debt, do you really think people are buying the new found fiscal responsibility?

We'd better off listening to astrologers and psychics than Republicans. At least psychics are sometimes right.


Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:34 am
Profile WWW
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
I didn't mean regulate themselves the way it came out. There should be regulation attached to the money, lots of it. Just like any private investor putting that much money into a company, you expect a say in how they're to be run, board seats, etc. The government is no different, there should be a lot of regulation attached to this money.

I meant to say that if the banks then get their act together, manage their investments properly and use the equity to repair their balance sheets, then the situation will slowly improve.

_________________
Image


Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:23 am
Profile WWW
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:30 pm
Posts: 12096
Location: Stroudsburg, PA
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
Now there's a US Senator who is actually talking about nationalizing the banks!

Those crazy socialists!

I guess we shouldn't be surprised, in this day and age of liberals taking over, with a politician this morning saying this:

"This idea of nationalizing banks is not comfortable, but I think we've got so many toxic assets spread throughout the banking and financial community, throughout the world, that we're going to have to do something that no one ever envisioned a year ago, no one likes. To me, banking and housing are the root cause of this problem. I'm very much afraid any program to salvage the bank is going to require the government... I would not take off the idea of nationalizing the banks."

Wow! What a crazy liberal senator! He was opposed by the wise-thinking capitalist Senator, who responded:

"I would not be for nationalizing. I don't think government is good at making these decisions."

So let's see, which Senator was for nationalization? Oh yes, that known socialist, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who was joined in this idea with Republican congressman Peter King.

And who was against this socialism? The notorious capitalist Charles Schumer, Democrat from New York.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_167048.html

_________________
Buy my books! http://michaelaventrella.com


Image


Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:15 pm
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
So when that joke of a party tout their "free market" principles as well as their objection to waste and spending, this is why we laugh.


Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:37 pm
Profile WWW
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:30 pm
Posts: 12096
Location: Stroudsburg, PA
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
You know, I hate the cliche that Republicans are for whatever is best for the rich, but they keep supporting that cliche, don't they? Regulation is bad when it hurts the rich but good when it helps; socialism is bad when it hurts the rich but is good when it helps... You have to admit that they are consistent in that regard.

_________________
Buy my books! http://michaelaventrella.com


Image


Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:42 pm
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
Groucho wrote:
You know, I hate the cliche that Republicans are for whatever is best for the rich, but they keep supporting that cliche, don't they? Regulation is bad when it hurts the rich but good when it helps; socialism is bad when it hurts the rich but is good when it helps... You have to admit that they are consistent in that regard.


I consider it a matter of fact, not a cliche. Privatize profits while socializing losses. Huge tax cuts for the highest tax brackets while claiming, falsely, that the poor and middle class pay no taxes.

I'm not sure they even try to hide this anymore.


Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:33 pm
Profile WWW
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
They pretty much announced a more detailed version of Part 4 of the stability plan today. It is essentially exactly what I said they should do a month ago, which is a good thing. It's also a bit different than they suggested initially, which is also a good thing as maybe the other parts will be adjusted too.

Considering some parts are desperatly in need of adjustment (mainly part 2 and 3), all we can do is cross our fingers.

_________________
Image


Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:03 pm
Profile WWW
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
Republicans have came out with 6 questions for Obama regarding the plan, since Obama obviously reads the forum and took my idea to begin with, I'll give him the answers:

Quote:
1) What will your plan do for the over 90 percent of homeowners who are playing and paying by the rules?

- Stupid question. You deal with fixing the problem, doing so will benefit those remaining by saving the equity in their houses, as well as their jobs.


Quote:
2) Does your plan compensate banks for bad mortgages they should have never made in the first place?

- Yes. But doing so serves as a better stimulus packgage than the $800 billion of garbage we just passed. It gives the banks a reason to go through modifying these mortgages (there not going to do it for the good of the consumer), and it gives them a chance to add millions in much needed equity. Two birds with one stone.


Quote:
3) Will individuals who misrepresented their income or assets on their original mortgage application be eligible to get the taxpayer funded assistance under your plan?

- A very good question. Hopefully the answer is no. If you lied to get the money, and then couldn't pay it back because of you're own lies, you don't deserve help, you deserve to lose the house you lied to get. The problem here is that this question is clearly aimed at lenders who didn't verify the borrowers income, taking the number the borrower gave them and assuming it's validity. Because of that, this is an issue that needs discussed, I would suggest a range, meaning if they reported their income within 120% of their real income, they are still eligable, etc. (120% is just an estimate, not actual guidance)


Quote:
4) Will you require mortgage servicers to verify income and other eligibility standards before modifying mortgages?

- Valid question, but tough to answer. I think it goes back mainly to #3, if the information given at that time was valid and correct, I think they should be eligable. Many, many reasons and things to be worked out with this one, many not black or white, but gray. For example, do you give money to someone who lost their job, have savings, but no income, and who badly need to re-finance to save their house? No easy answers.


Quote:
5) What will you do to prevent the same mortgages that receive assistance and are modified from going into default three, six or eight months later?

- There are many features that aid in this. One, banks get a $1500 credit if they stay out of default, so they have incentive to help craft an affordable mortgage. Two, there is an income cap of 31%, so their payment won't be above that amount. What else would you like to see, there is only so much we can do to keep people paying, the goal here is to do everything we can to make it posible and affordable to pay.


Quote:
6) How do you intend to move forward in the drafting of the legislation and who will author it?

- Valid question, deserves an answer. Hopefully it's a bi-partisan team crafting the bill.

_________________
Image


Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:53 pm
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
Eagle wrote:
Republicans have came out with 6 questions for Obama regarding the plan


My question to them is "Who gives a fuck?" These are the slimy idiots who doubled the national debt with no jobs to show for it, whose only answer to everything is "cut taxes."

What the hell do they know and why should anyone listen to the GOP?

And this bill was "garbage"? So when Bush sends $800 billion to wealthy bankers and nationalizes the banking system, that was awesome. When they put billions on a plane and send it to Iraq where it gets lost, that's "worth every penny." But money to help pay for education and put people to work on infrastructure is garbage?

So your view on big government and waste is "it's okay when Republicans do it." And you accuse ME of being partisan?

Funny enough, your worthless party of scumbags is now going around touting how the "generational theft" stimulus bill will benefit their local districts and states by putting people to work and providing help for low-income and middle-class families. Wow.


Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:28 pm
Profile WWW
Site Owner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
The stimulus bill is garbage. It does a few things right, but spends a fuck ton of money in areas that won't maximize economic stimulus. There were better ways to spend the money, you can blow steam all day saying how the GOP has no right to this or that, but the end result is still that your party pushed through a spending bill, slapped a stimulus sticker on it, and threw it to the taxpayers before they had any clue what they just bought, hell, before THEY even knew what they just voted for.

You love to point the finger, well take a look at your party, they just forced a trillion dollars down the taxpayers throat. There's a reason why the more people here about it the less they like it.

Again, the bill isn't all bad, some aspects are good, but a whole lot of it was unneeded and not relevant to a stimulus bill. But we've been down this path before, do you have anything relevant to talk about with regards to the Financial Stability Plan, or would you rather go back to the mindless attacks you do so well?

_________________
Image


Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:43 pm
Profile WWW
All Star Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 4679
Post Re: Financial Stability Plan
Eagle wrote:
You love to point the finger, well take a look at your party, they just forced a trillion dollars down the taxpayers throat.


Which is exactly how you described the war, or the Bush bank bailout. Oh wait, no it isn't! The war was "worth every penny." It's the "it's okay when Republicans do it" argument and you have the nerve to describe my comments as mindless?

Your party DOUBLED the national debt. I know you like to sweep that little nugget under the rug while you bitch about all the "waste" in the Dem bill. Your sudden concern about the taxpayers is transparently partisan and disingenuous, just like everything your party does. Party first. Country last. That's the GOP.

Quote:
There's a reason why the more people here about it the less they like it.


According to the latest Gallup poll, support for the bill went UP from 52% to 59% as of Feb 11 compared to the week before. 64% say the stimulus will help the economy.

Obama's job approval rating is 76%.
Congressional Dems are at 60%.
Republicans are at 44%.

Quote:
Again, the bill isn't all bad, some aspects are good, but a whole lot of it was unneeded and not relevant to a stimulus bill.


A "whole lot" being a whopping 2%. Meanwhile you supported the bank bailout for billionaires without so much as a yawn for the poor ol' taxpayers. Not to mention the war and its billions and billions in waste. And yet somehow, those billions in waste didn't make the whole thing garbage. Because it's okay when Republicans do it.

Meanwhile, the same Republicans who called the package "generational theft" and said it wouldn't create jobs, are bragging to their districts and their states about all the jobs they're going to take credit for creating with the stimulus.

Quote:
would you rather go back to the mindless attacks you do so well?


You actually argued that the GOP was better on the economy than Dems despite doubling the national debt while creating no new jobs, that Republicans favor a "free market" after they nationalized the banking system, and that the war in Iraq was totally necessary and worth every penny and you're calling ME mindless?

You and your party's utter and complete lack of credibility goes right to the point. While you disapprove of a bill that puts lower and middle income people to work, you favor hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to banks.

Do you really wonder why the public overwhelmingly favors Democrats on economic policy at this point? Do you REALLY?


Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:57 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 219 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.