|
|
|
I think what they mean is that Obama threatened using veto power on other bills to make sure that the democrats didn't block him from using that $350 billion.
|
ahhhh god dammit. the way I see it, the banks are the ones who deserve that money absolutely the least. second on that list (a very close second) is the morons who decided that taking out four mortgages and refinancing 18 times was a good idea. the banks need to go out of business, and the morons need to learn how to manage the money they HAVE, not the money they think they ought to have. /vent
but yeah abydos is right 
|
On January 14 2009 16:23 aeronexus wrote:ahhhh god dammit. the way I see it, the banks are the ones who deserve that money absolutely the least. second on that list (a very close second) is the morons who decided that taking out four mortgages and refinancing 18 times was a good idea. the banks need to go out of business, and the morons need to learn how to manage the money they HAVE, not the money they think they ought to have. /vent but yeah abydos is right
this is such a naive stance.
do you have any idea the reprecussions on society if we don't have banks?
do you like having a job and eating food and not living in anarchy? I'm not educated on the matter and can't predict how far the reprecussions would reach, but it does seem that this issue is about more than 'what banks deserve'. I don't give a fuck about the banks - i think they should be fucked like you do - but the success of society/the economy is a little more important than petty justice no?
|
On January 14 2009 16:08 il0seonpurpose wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economyShow nested quote +WASHINGTON – Tested before taking power, President-elect Barack Obama privately delivered a pre-inauguration veto threat to fellow Democrats on Tuesday, saying they would not deny him use of the remaining $350 billion in federal bailout funds.
Obama coupled his threat with a promise to revise elements of the original bailout program that have drawn widespread criticism, pledging that billions will go toward helping homeowners facing foreclosure. Several Democrats said his commitments, to be made in writing, would be enough to prevent an embarrassing pre-inauguration drubbing for the president-elect when the Senate votes this week.
"This will be the first vote that President-elect Obama is asking us for. I'll be shocked and I'll be really disappointed if he doesn't get it," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent Democrat from Connecticut
contributed to this story. Basically I don't understand the first paragraph, Democrats are not denying him the use of the bailout money and he's vetoing it? Isn't it a good thing that they're not denying him the power? Even if you don't understand this, what's the grammer perspective?
it means that he told the dems that even if they try to resist giving him the rest of the TARP money he will just use his veto to get it anyways. he will not be denied the money.
the way TARP is set up is that the president is allowed to take the money unless congress passes a motion denying him access.
so obama just told congress that even if they try to deny him access he will just veto their denial motion, thereby getting access to the money anyways.
|
On January 14 2009 20:08 a-game wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2009 16:08 il0seonpurpose wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economyWASHINGTON – Tested before taking power, President-elect Barack Obama privately delivered a pre-inauguration veto threat to fellow Democrats on Tuesday, saying they would not deny him use of the remaining $350 billion in federal bailout funds.
Obama coupled his threat with a promise to revise elements of the original bailout program that have drawn widespread criticism, pledging that billions will go toward helping homeowners facing foreclosure. Several Democrats said his commitments, to be made in writing, would be enough to prevent an embarrassing pre-inauguration drubbing for the president-elect when the Senate votes this week.
"This will be the first vote that President-elect Obama is asking us for. I'll be shocked and I'll be really disappointed if he doesn't get it," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent Democrat from Connecticut
contributed to this story. Basically I don't understand the first paragraph, Democrats are not denying him the use of the bailout money and he's vetoing it? Isn't it a good thing that they're not denying him the power? Even if you don't understand this, what's the grammer perspective? it means that he told the dems that even if they try to resist giving him the rest of the TARP money he will just use his veto to get it anyways. he will not be denied the money. the way TARP is set up is that the president is allowed to take the money unless congress passes a motion denying him access. so obama just told congress that even if they try to deny him access he will just veto their denial motion, thereby getting access to the money anyways.
Sorry, I know nothing of this kind of stuff, but wouldn't the veto power of the president make the involvement of congress irrelevant?
|
Economics and politics don't make any sense.
|
On January 15 2009 00:06 Chromyne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2009 20:08 a-game wrote:On January 14 2009 16:08 il0seonpurpose wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economyWASHINGTON – Tested before taking power, President-elect Barack Obama privately delivered a pre-inauguration veto threat to fellow Democrats on Tuesday, saying they would not deny him use of the remaining $350 billion in federal bailout funds.
Obama coupled his threat with a promise to revise elements of the original bailout program that have drawn widespread criticism, pledging that billions will go toward helping homeowners facing foreclosure. Several Democrats said his commitments, to be made in writing, would be enough to prevent an embarrassing pre-inauguration drubbing for the president-elect when the Senate votes this week.
"This will be the first vote that President-elect Obama is asking us for. I'll be shocked and I'll be really disappointed if he doesn't get it," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent Democrat from Connecticut
contributed to this story. Basically I don't understand the first paragraph, Democrats are not denying him the use of the bailout money and he's vetoing it? Isn't it a good thing that they're not denying him the power? Even if you don't understand this, what's the grammer perspective? it means that he told the dems that even if they try to resist giving him the rest of the TARP money he will just use his veto to get it anyways. he will not be denied the money. the way TARP is set up is that the president is allowed to take the money unless congress passes a motion denying him access. so obama just told congress that even if they try to deny him access he will just veto their denial motion, thereby getting access to the money anyways. Sorry, I know nothing of this kind of stuff, but wouldn't the veto power of the president make the involvement of congress irrelevant?
what do you mean? are you wondering why he's even bothering to threaten congress if he already has veto powers to do what he wants?
it's not that simple, he'd definitely much rather twist congress' arm behind the scenes to make them do what he wants rather than have to pull out the veto pen so early in his administration.
plus, congress can override a presidential veto if they can muster two thirds of congress behind a motion. so there's no guarantee that if he did use his veto they wouldn't just override him anyways.
hopefully that answers your question, if not then just clarify a bit more
|
Wow... okay so:
Obama wants this TARP money.
Congress has the power to give it to him.
If they vote not to, he can veto their decision.
If he vetos their decision, they can override his veto with a larger majority.
I see what you're getting at, but this is probably one of the reasons why politics isn't my thing. It's too much >_<"
|
Economics was invented on a system of faith and remains alive as such, it is predicted that someday our current economical system will be obsolete, hopefully we are in the midst of that now. The more people realize money is only worth what people make it out to be. I know thats a harsh statement and sounds uneducated, but the more you understand economics the more it becomes an "Ah!" statement. If people lose faith in the markets, what hurts the markets more than them doing poorly, is the fear that is created and the people taking their money out.
All this short term investments fuck shit up fo real...... but people gotta make their money somehow, regardless of the "bigger picture"... meh I hate economics too man ew
|
On January 16 2009 06:52 ToSs.Bag wrote:
Economics was invented on a system of faith and remains alive as such
Economics
1 a: a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services
|
On January 15 2009 04:23 Chromyne wrote:
Wow... okay so:
Obama wants this TARP money.
Congress has the power to give it to him.
If they vote not to, he can veto their decision.
If he vetos their decision, they can override his veto with a larger majority.
I see what you're getting at, but this is probably one of the reasons why politics isn't my thing. It's too much >_<"
haha i guess it's good i didn't mention the senate filibuster then
|
On January 14 2009 17:51 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2009 16:23 aeronexus wrote:ahhhh god dammit. the way I see it, the banks are the ones who deserve that money absolutely the least. second on that list (a very close second) is the morons who decided that taking out four mortgages and refinancing 18 times was a good idea. the banks need to go out of business, and the morons need to learn how to manage the money they HAVE, not the money they think they ought to have. /vent but yeah abydos is right this is such a naive stance. do you have any idea the reprecussions on society if we don't have banks? do you like having a job and eating food and not living in anarchy? I'm not educated on the matter and can't predict how far the reprecussions would reach, but it does seem that this issue is about more than 'what banks deserve'. I don't give a fuck about the banks - i think they should be fucked like you do - but the success of society/the economy is a little more important than petty justice no?
Exactly.
The biggest problem right now is not that people do not have money, but that people are losing faith due to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. The only way to restore stability in the market is to bailout the banks who own mortgage backed securities and have them start lending again.
|
well i think there are people out there who would find it funny
but alright, didnt think I was hurting anyone im sorry
|
On January 16 2009 14:05 travis wrote:
B O R I N G
So you run into a thread you're not interested, type boring.
Do you think you are funny or clever? Because you are neither.
Shut the fuck up, you're a terrible poster currently and your posts are getting obnoxious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
