|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 24 2014 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 23 2014 17:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2014 16:53 IgnE wrote:National Employment Law Project Report on Job RecoveryWe find that during the labor market downturn (measured from January 2008 to February 2010), employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage and higher-wage industries. By contrast, during the recovery (measured from February 2010 to February 2014), employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage industries. Specifically:
Lower-wage industries constituted 22 percent of recession losses, but 44 percent of recovery growth.
Mid-wage industries constituted 37 percent of recession losses, but only 26 percent of recovery growth.
Higher-wage industries constituted 41 percent of recession losses, and 30 percent of recovery growth. More dismal news about this jobless recovery. It was nice to see Geithner admit to Jon Stewart that the economy was still abominable. Could you imagine the rhetoric had the Bush administration and Republicans been able to privatize social security and injected that money into the financial crisis pushing the collapse just past the end of his presidency? Could you imagine if instead of Bush it was Obama who had to pass TARP? Not that facts matter to Americans.... Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama.
SourceLike seriously... I was clearly too ambitious wanting to get universal agreement on the earth being >~9,000 years old... How the shit is this possible? 'Don't Know' was an option.... I seriously don't understand how this happens? Is disinformation that powerful, is it just (internalized) prejudice against democrats, probably some combination of that and more? TARP was great. Obama should be glad he's being credited for it. LOL? You don't see a problem with 47% of people not being able to comprehend an incredibly simple and provable fact? Your takeaway was that Obama should be happy that people are totally oblivious? That's an insatiably cynical view.
TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks.
|
On May 24 2014 00:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 23 2014 17:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2014 16:53 IgnE wrote:National Employment Law Project Report on Job RecoveryWe find that during the labor market downturn (measured from January 2008 to February 2010), employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage and higher-wage industries. By contrast, during the recovery (measured from February 2010 to February 2014), employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage industries. Specifically:
Lower-wage industries constituted 22 percent of recession losses, but 44 percent of recovery growth.
Mid-wage industries constituted 37 percent of recession losses, but only 26 percent of recovery growth.
Higher-wage industries constituted 41 percent of recession losses, and 30 percent of recovery growth. More dismal news about this jobless recovery. It was nice to see Geithner admit to Jon Stewart that the economy was still abominable. Could you imagine the rhetoric had the Bush administration and Republicans been able to privatize social security and injected that money into the financial crisis pushing the collapse just past the end of his presidency? Could you imagine if instead of Bush it was Obama who had to pass TARP? Not that facts matter to Americans.... Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama.
SourceLike seriously... I was clearly too ambitious wanting to get universal agreement on the earth being >~9,000 years old... How the shit is this possible? 'Don't Know' was an option.... I seriously don't understand how this happens? Is disinformation that powerful, is it just (internalized) prejudice against democrats, probably some combination of that and more? TARP was great. Obama should be glad he's being credited for it. LOL? You don't see a problem with 47% of people not being able to comprehend an incredibly simple and provable fact? Your takeaway was that Obama should be happy that people are totally oblivious? That's an insatiably cynical view. TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks.
Yeah but which administrations watch it became a necessity isn't a small deal...Whatever you want to call it, it certainly was the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives say they stand for...
That's the only logical reason I can think of for people being so terribly ignorant. TARP was so the opposite of what conservatives/Republicans claim they stand for people just assume it had to of been Democrats who called for it.
TARP wasn't the free money, the 0% interest money they are turning around and lending for a profit was/is the free money. But without it, the whole global economy would collapse, so we keep giving them money and they keep taking more for themselves.
|
On May 24 2014 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2014 17:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2014 16:53 IgnE wrote:National Employment Law Project Report on Job RecoveryWe find that during the labor market downturn (measured from January 2008 to February 2010), employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage and higher-wage industries. By contrast, during the recovery (measured from February 2010 to February 2014), employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage industries. Specifically:
Lower-wage industries constituted 22 percent of recession losses, but 44 percent of recovery growth.
Mid-wage industries constituted 37 percent of recession losses, but only 26 percent of recovery growth.
Higher-wage industries constituted 41 percent of recession losses, and 30 percent of recovery growth. More dismal news about this jobless recovery. It was nice to see Geithner admit to Jon Stewart that the economy was still abominable. Could you imagine the rhetoric had the Bush administration and Republicans been able to privatize social security and injected that money into the financial crisis pushing the collapse just past the end of his presidency? Could you imagine if instead of Bush it was Obama who had to pass TARP? Not that facts matter to Americans.... Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama.
SourceLike seriously... I was clearly too ambitious wanting to get universal agreement on the earth being >~9,000 years old... How the shit is this possible? 'Don't Know' was an option.... I seriously don't understand how this happens? Is disinformation that powerful, is it just (internalized) prejudice against democrats, probably some combination of that and more? TARP was great. Obama should be glad he's being credited for it.
It's great if you understand banking systems a little bit and can look past partisan politics to the solutions that help us regardless of ideologies, but how much of the electorate is that way? TARP is largely viewed by the public as a failure and a shit-stain on whoever "owns" it.
Disinformation is showing to be a HUGE cause of public idiocy. With more and more studies showing that initial information sourcing greatly influences how one perceives actual facts, even after a correction, along with other studies showing how people solidify their political confirmation bias when presented with facts that contradict their political beliefs. Personally, I find these findings frightening...
|
On May 24 2014 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 00:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 23 2014 17:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2014 16:53 IgnE wrote:National Employment Law Project Report on Job RecoveryWe find that during the labor market downturn (measured from January 2008 to February 2010), employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage and higher-wage industries. By contrast, during the recovery (measured from February 2010 to February 2014), employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage industries. Specifically:
Lower-wage industries constituted 22 percent of recession losses, but 44 percent of recovery growth.
Mid-wage industries constituted 37 percent of recession losses, but only 26 percent of recovery growth.
Higher-wage industries constituted 41 percent of recession losses, and 30 percent of recovery growth. More dismal news about this jobless recovery. It was nice to see Geithner admit to Jon Stewart that the economy was still abominable. Could you imagine the rhetoric had the Bush administration and Republicans been able to privatize social security and injected that money into the financial crisis pushing the collapse just past the end of his presidency? Could you imagine if instead of Bush it was Obama who had to pass TARP? Not that facts matter to Americans.... Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama.
SourceLike seriously... I was clearly too ambitious wanting to get universal agreement on the earth being >~9,000 years old... How the shit is this possible? 'Don't Know' was an option.... I seriously don't understand how this happens? Is disinformation that powerful, is it just (internalized) prejudice against democrats, probably some combination of that and more? TARP was great. Obama should be glad he's being credited for it. LOL? You don't see a problem with 47% of people not being able to comprehend an incredibly simple and provable fact? Your takeaway was that Obama should be happy that people are totally oblivious? That's an insatiably cynical view. TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks. Yeah but which administrations watch it became a necessity isn't a small deal...Whatever you want to call it, it certainly was the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives say they stand for... That's the only logical reason I can think of for people being so terribly ignorant. TARP was so the opposite of what conservatives/Republicans claim they stand for people just assume it had to of been Democrats who called for it. TARP wasn't the free money, the 0% interest money they are turning around and lending for a profit was/is the free money. But without it, the whole global economy would collapse, so we keep giving them money and they keep taking more for themselves.
Yeah TARP is nominally the opposite of what Republicans / conservatives stand for. That's why it failed the first vote in the house:
Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it.
Republicans were a bit more kind the second go around:
Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote.
Source
Most Republicans did and do hate the idea of a bailout. It was only done because it was really necessary.
What free money are you referencing?
|
On May 24 2014 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 23 2014 17:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2014 16:53 IgnE wrote:National Employment Law Project Report on Job RecoveryWe find that during the labor market downturn (measured from January 2008 to February 2010), employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage and higher-wage industries. By contrast, during the recovery (measured from February 2010 to February 2014), employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage industries. Specifically:
Lower-wage industries constituted 22 percent of recession losses, but 44 percent of recovery growth.
Mid-wage industries constituted 37 percent of recession losses, but only 26 percent of recovery growth.
Higher-wage industries constituted 41 percent of recession losses, and 30 percent of recovery growth. More dismal news about this jobless recovery. It was nice to see Geithner admit to Jon Stewart that the economy was still abominable. Could you imagine the rhetoric had the Bush administration and Republicans been able to privatize social security and injected that money into the financial crisis pushing the collapse just past the end of his presidency? Could you imagine if instead of Bush it was Obama who had to pass TARP? Not that facts matter to Americans.... Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama.
SourceLike seriously... I was clearly too ambitious wanting to get universal agreement on the earth being >~9,000 years old... How the shit is this possible? 'Don't Know' was an option.... I seriously don't understand how this happens? Is disinformation that powerful, is it just (internalized) prejudice against democrats, probably some combination of that and more? TARP was great. Obama should be glad he's being credited for it. LOL? You don't see a problem with 47% of people not being able to comprehend an incredibly simple and provable fact? Your takeaway was that Obama should be happy that people are totally oblivious? That's an insatiably cynical view. TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks. Yeah but which administrations watch it became a necessity isn't a small deal...Whatever you want to call it, it certainly was the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives say they stand for... That's the only logical reason I can think of for people being so terribly ignorant. TARP was so the opposite of what conservatives/Republicans claim they stand for people just assume it had to of been Democrats who called for it. TARP wasn't the free money, the 0% interest money they are turning around and lending for a profit was/is the free money. But without it, the whole global economy would collapse, so we keep giving them money and they keep taking more for themselves. Yeah TARP is nominally the opposite of what Republicans / conservatives stand for. That's why it failed the first vote in the house: Show nested quote +Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it. Republicans were a bit more kind the second go around: Show nested quote +Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote. SourceMost Republicans did and do hate the idea of a bailout. It was only done because it was really necessary. What free money are you referencing?
It isn't/wasn't just nominally against it, it was fundamentally acting in antithesis of the foundation of their economic thought...
It's 'necessity' was brought on at least in large part because of those same thoughts.
The issue is either they had to save the economy and betray decades of rhetoric, or stay consistent and watch their ideological nonsense bring about the greatest economic disaster in history...
As for the free money, don't play dumb... Well, unless you're not playing?
|
On May 24 2014 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 23 2014 17:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2014 16:53 IgnE wrote:National Employment Law Project Report on Job RecoveryWe find that during the labor market downturn (measured from January 2008 to February 2010), employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage and higher-wage industries. By contrast, during the recovery (measured from February 2010 to February 2014), employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage industries. Specifically:
Lower-wage industries constituted 22 percent of recession losses, but 44 percent of recovery growth.
Mid-wage industries constituted 37 percent of recession losses, but only 26 percent of recovery growth.
Higher-wage industries constituted 41 percent of recession losses, and 30 percent of recovery growth. More dismal news about this jobless recovery. It was nice to see Geithner admit to Jon Stewart that the economy was still abominable. Could you imagine the rhetoric had the Bush administration and Republicans been able to privatize social security and injected that money into the financial crisis pushing the collapse just past the end of his presidency? Could you imagine if instead of Bush it was Obama who had to pass TARP? Not that facts matter to Americans.... Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama.
SourceLike seriously... I was clearly too ambitious wanting to get universal agreement on the earth being >~9,000 years old... How the shit is this possible? 'Don't Know' was an option.... I seriously don't understand how this happens? Is disinformation that powerful, is it just (internalized) prejudice against democrats, probably some combination of that and more? TARP was great. Obama should be glad he's being credited for it. LOL? You don't see a problem with 47% of people not being able to comprehend an incredibly simple and provable fact? Your takeaway was that Obama should be happy that people are totally oblivious? That's an insatiably cynical view. TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks. Yeah but which administrations watch it became a necessity isn't a small deal...Whatever you want to call it, it certainly was the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives say they stand for... That's the only logical reason I can think of for people being so terribly ignorant. TARP was so the opposite of what conservatives/Republicans claim they stand for people just assume it had to of been Democrats who called for it. TARP wasn't the free money, the 0% interest money they are turning around and lending for a profit was/is the free money. But without it, the whole global economy would collapse, so we keep giving them money and they keep taking more for themselves. Yeah TARP is nominally the opposite of what Republicans / conservatives stand for. That's why it failed the first vote in the house: Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it. Republicans were a bit more kind the second go around: Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote. SourceMost Republicans did and do hate the idea of a bailout. It was only done because it was really necessary. What free money are you referencing? It isn't/wasn't just nominally against it, it was fundamentally acting in antithesis of the foundation of their economic thought... It's 'necessity' was brought on at least in large part because of those same thoughts. The issue is either they had to save the economy and betray decades of rhetoric, or stay consistent and watch their ideological nonsense bring about the greatest economic disaster in history... As for the free money, don't play dumb... Well, unless you're not playing?
Exactly, sometimes you have to betray rhetoric and do what makes sense to get things done. I was fiercely opposed to TARP at the time but in hindsight it turned out to be a fantastic bill to stabilize the economy at no cost to the taxpayers. As for the free money, most conservatives are getting more hawkish, while liberals are typically taking the dovish stance.
|
On May 24 2014 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 23 2014 17:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2014 16:53 IgnE wrote:National Employment Law Project Report on Job RecoveryWe find that during the labor market downturn (measured from January 2008 to February 2010), employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage and higher-wage industries. By contrast, during the recovery (measured from February 2010 to February 2014), employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage industries. Specifically:
Lower-wage industries constituted 22 percent of recession losses, but 44 percent of recovery growth.
Mid-wage industries constituted 37 percent of recession losses, but only 26 percent of recovery growth.
Higher-wage industries constituted 41 percent of recession losses, and 30 percent of recovery growth. More dismal news about this jobless recovery. It was nice to see Geithner admit to Jon Stewart that the economy was still abominable. Could you imagine the rhetoric had the Bush administration and Republicans been able to privatize social security and injected that money into the financial crisis pushing the collapse just past the end of his presidency? Could you imagine if instead of Bush it was Obama who had to pass TARP? Not that facts matter to Americans.... Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama.
SourceLike seriously... I was clearly too ambitious wanting to get universal agreement on the earth being >~9,000 years old... How the shit is this possible? 'Don't Know' was an option.... I seriously don't understand how this happens? Is disinformation that powerful, is it just (internalized) prejudice against democrats, probably some combination of that and more? TARP was great. Obama should be glad he's being credited for it. LOL? You don't see a problem with 47% of people not being able to comprehend an incredibly simple and provable fact? Your takeaway was that Obama should be happy that people are totally oblivious? That's an insatiably cynical view. TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks. Yeah but which administrations watch it became a necessity isn't a small deal...Whatever you want to call it, it certainly was the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives say they stand for... That's the only logical reason I can think of for people being so terribly ignorant. TARP was so the opposite of what conservatives/Republicans claim they stand for people just assume it had to of been Democrats who called for it. TARP wasn't the free money, the 0% interest money they are turning around and lending for a profit was/is the free money. But without it, the whole global economy would collapse, so we keep giving them money and they keep taking more for themselves. Yeah TARP is nominally the opposite of what Republicans / conservatives stand for. That's why it failed the first vote in the house: Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it. Republicans were a bit more kind the second go around: Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote. SourceMost Republicans did and do hate the idea of a bailout. It was only done because it was really necessary. What free money are you referencing? It isn't/wasn't just nominally against it, it was fundamentally acting in antithesis of the foundation of their economic thought... It's 'necessity' was brought on at least in large part because of those same thoughts. The issue is either they had to save the economy and betray decades of rhetoric, or stay consistent and watch their ideological nonsense bring about the greatest economic disaster in history... As for the free money, don't play dumb... Well, unless you're not playing?
What 'thoughts' are you referring to? The crisis was mainly a run on the financial system which had little to do with deregulation or free market ideology, assuming that's what you are getting at.
By free money are you referencing the low interest rate environment? Banks make money on the spread between one rate and another. It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%, so long as the spread is positive. Not sure what you think matters here.
|
On May 24 2014 02:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 23 2014 17:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2014 16:53 IgnE wrote:National Employment Law Project Report on Job RecoveryWe find that during the labor market downturn (measured from January 2008 to February 2010), employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage and higher-wage industries. By contrast, during the recovery (measured from February 2010 to February 2014), employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage industries. Specifically:
Lower-wage industries constituted 22 percent of recession losses, but 44 percent of recovery growth.
Mid-wage industries constituted 37 percent of recession losses, but only 26 percent of recovery growth.
Higher-wage industries constituted 41 percent of recession losses, and 30 percent of recovery growth. More dismal news about this jobless recovery. It was nice to see Geithner admit to Jon Stewart that the economy was still abominable. Could you imagine the rhetoric had the Bush administration and Republicans been able to privatize social security and injected that money into the financial crisis pushing the collapse just past the end of his presidency? Could you imagine if instead of Bush it was Obama who had to pass TARP? Not that facts matter to Americans.... Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama.
SourceLike seriously... I was clearly too ambitious wanting to get universal agreement on the earth being >~9,000 years old... How the shit is this possible? 'Don't Know' was an option.... I seriously don't understand how this happens? Is disinformation that powerful, is it just (internalized) prejudice against democrats, probably some combination of that and more? TARP was great. Obama should be glad he's being credited for it. LOL? You don't see a problem with 47% of people not being able to comprehend an incredibly simple and provable fact? Your takeaway was that Obama should be happy that people are totally oblivious? That's an insatiably cynical view. TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks. Yeah but which administrations watch it became a necessity isn't a small deal...Whatever you want to call it, it certainly was the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives say they stand for... That's the only logical reason I can think of for people being so terribly ignorant. TARP was so the opposite of what conservatives/Republicans claim they stand for people just assume it had to of been Democrats who called for it. TARP wasn't the free money, the 0% interest money they are turning around and lending for a profit was/is the free money. But without it, the whole global economy would collapse, so we keep giving them money and they keep taking more for themselves. Yeah TARP is nominally the opposite of what Republicans / conservatives stand for. That's why it failed the first vote in the house: Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it. Republicans were a bit more kind the second go around: Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote. SourceMost Republicans did and do hate the idea of a bailout. It was only done because it was really necessary. What free money are you referencing? It isn't/wasn't just nominally against it, it was fundamentally acting in antithesis of the foundation of their economic thought... It's 'necessity' was brought on at least in large part because of those same thoughts. The issue is either they had to save the economy and betray decades of rhetoric, or stay consistent and watch their ideological nonsense bring about the greatest economic disaster in history... As for the free money, don't play dumb... Well, unless you're not playing? What 'thoughts' are you referring to? The crisis was mainly a run on the financial system which had little to do with deregulation or free market ideology, assuming that's what you are getting at. By free money are you referencing the low interest rate environment? Banks make money on the spread between one rate and another. It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%, so long as the spread is positive. Not sure what you think matters here.
"It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%" just let that sink in for a while...
That's not the only free money either... you know that right?
|
On May 24 2014 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 02:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 23 2014 17:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Could you imagine the rhetoric had the Bush administration and Republicans been able to privatize social security and injected that money into the financial crisis pushing the collapse just past the end of his presidency? Could you imagine if instead of Bush it was Obama who had to pass TARP? Not that facts matter to Americans.... Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama.
SourceLike seriously... I was clearly too ambitious wanting to get universal agreement on the earth being >~9,000 years old... How the shit is this possible? 'Don't Know' was an option.... I seriously don't understand how this happens? Is disinformation that powerful, is it just (internalized) prejudice against democrats, probably some combination of that and more? TARP was great. Obama should be glad he's being credited for it. LOL? You don't see a problem with 47% of people not being able to comprehend an incredibly simple and provable fact? Your takeaway was that Obama should be happy that people are totally oblivious? That's an insatiably cynical view. TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks. Yeah but which administrations watch it became a necessity isn't a small deal...Whatever you want to call it, it certainly was the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives say they stand for... That's the only logical reason I can think of for people being so terribly ignorant. TARP was so the opposite of what conservatives/Republicans claim they stand for people just assume it had to of been Democrats who called for it. TARP wasn't the free money, the 0% interest money they are turning around and lending for a profit was/is the free money. But without it, the whole global economy would collapse, so we keep giving them money and they keep taking more for themselves. Yeah TARP is nominally the opposite of what Republicans / conservatives stand for. That's why it failed the first vote in the house: Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it. Republicans were a bit more kind the second go around: Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote. SourceMost Republicans did and do hate the idea of a bailout. It was only done because it was really necessary. What free money are you referencing? It isn't/wasn't just nominally against it, it was fundamentally acting in antithesis of the foundation of their economic thought... It's 'necessity' was brought on at least in large part because of those same thoughts. The issue is either they had to save the economy and betray decades of rhetoric, or stay consistent and watch their ideological nonsense bring about the greatest economic disaster in history... As for the free money, don't play dumb... Well, unless you're not playing? What 'thoughts' are you referring to? The crisis was mainly a run on the financial system which had little to do with deregulation or free market ideology, assuming that's what you are getting at. By free money are you referencing the low interest rate environment? Banks make money on the spread between one rate and another. It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%, so long as the spread is positive. Not sure what you think matters here. "It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%" just let that sink in for a while...
Umm, did you have counter argument or are you just using quote that 'looks bad'?
That's not the only free money either... you know that right?
Why don't you just state what you are talking about?
|
On May 24 2014 02:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 02:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 23 2014 17:36 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Could you imagine the rhetoric had the Bush administration and Republicans been able to privatize social security and injected that money into the financial crisis pushing the collapse just past the end of his presidency? Could you imagine if instead of Bush it was Obama who had to pass TARP? Not that facts matter to Americans.... [quote] SourceLike seriously... I was clearly too ambitious wanting to get universal agreement on the earth being >~9,000 years old... How the shit is this possible? 'Don't Know' was an option.... I seriously don't understand how this happens? Is disinformation that powerful, is it just (internalized) prejudice against democrats, probably some combination of that and more? TARP was great. Obama should be glad he's being credited for it. LOL? You don't see a problem with 47% of people not being able to comprehend an incredibly simple and provable fact? Your takeaway was that Obama should be happy that people are totally oblivious? That's an insatiably cynical view. TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks. Yeah but which administrations watch it became a necessity isn't a small deal...Whatever you want to call it, it certainly was the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives say they stand for... That's the only logical reason I can think of for people being so terribly ignorant. TARP was so the opposite of what conservatives/Republicans claim they stand for people just assume it had to of been Democrats who called for it. TARP wasn't the free money, the 0% interest money they are turning around and lending for a profit was/is the free money. But without it, the whole global economy would collapse, so we keep giving them money and they keep taking more for themselves. Yeah TARP is nominally the opposite of what Republicans / conservatives stand for. That's why it failed the first vote in the house: Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it. Republicans were a bit more kind the second go around: Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote. SourceMost Republicans did and do hate the idea of a bailout. It was only done because it was really necessary. What free money are you referencing? It isn't/wasn't just nominally against it, it was fundamentally acting in antithesis of the foundation of their economic thought... It's 'necessity' was brought on at least in large part because of those same thoughts. The issue is either they had to save the economy and betray decades of rhetoric, or stay consistent and watch their ideological nonsense bring about the greatest economic disaster in history... As for the free money, don't play dumb... Well, unless you're not playing? What 'thoughts' are you referring to? The crisis was mainly a run on the financial system which had little to do with deregulation or free market ideology, assuming that's what you are getting at. By free money are you referencing the low interest rate environment? Banks make money on the spread between one rate and another. It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%, so long as the spread is positive. Not sure what you think matters here. "It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%" just let that sink in for a while... Umm, did you have counter argument or are you just using quote that 'looks bad'? Why don't you just state what you are talking about?
It's pretty obvious on it's face.
I guess you asking why, is in the same vein of wondering what free money I'm talking about.
Either it's obvious because you are informed on the subject and you are asking questions you already know the answer to, or you are pretty oblivious to the situation.
I know you are intelligent enough to have figured this out on your own so I have no desire to hold your hand through an explanation.
|
On May 24 2014 02:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 23 2014 17:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2014 16:53 IgnE wrote:National Employment Law Project Report on Job RecoveryWe find that during the labor market downturn (measured from January 2008 to February 2010), employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage and higher-wage industries. By contrast, during the recovery (measured from February 2010 to February 2014), employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage industries. Specifically:
Lower-wage industries constituted 22 percent of recession losses, but 44 percent of recovery growth.
Mid-wage industries constituted 37 percent of recession losses, but only 26 percent of recovery growth.
Higher-wage industries constituted 41 percent of recession losses, and 30 percent of recovery growth. More dismal news about this jobless recovery. It was nice to see Geithner admit to Jon Stewart that the economy was still abominable. Could you imagine the rhetoric had the Bush administration and Republicans been able to privatize social security and injected that money into the financial crisis pushing the collapse just past the end of his presidency? Could you imagine if instead of Bush it was Obama who had to pass TARP? Not that facts matter to Americans.... Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama.
SourceLike seriously... I was clearly too ambitious wanting to get universal agreement on the earth being >~9,000 years old... How the shit is this possible? 'Don't Know' was an option.... I seriously don't understand how this happens? Is disinformation that powerful, is it just (internalized) prejudice against democrats, probably some combination of that and more? TARP was great. Obama should be glad he's being credited for it. LOL? You don't see a problem with 47% of people not being able to comprehend an incredibly simple and provable fact? Your takeaway was that Obama should be happy that people are totally oblivious? That's an insatiably cynical view. TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks. Yeah but which administrations watch it became a necessity isn't a small deal...Whatever you want to call it, it certainly was the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives say they stand for... That's the only logical reason I can think of for people being so terribly ignorant. TARP was so the opposite of what conservatives/Republicans claim they stand for people just assume it had to of been Democrats who called for it. TARP wasn't the free money, the 0% interest money they are turning around and lending for a profit was/is the free money. But without it, the whole global economy would collapse, so we keep giving them money and they keep taking more for themselves. Yeah TARP is nominally the opposite of what Republicans / conservatives stand for. That's why it failed the first vote in the house: Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it. Republicans were a bit more kind the second go around: Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote. SourceMost Republicans did and do hate the idea of a bailout. It was only done because it was really necessary. What free money are you referencing? It isn't/wasn't just nominally against it, it was fundamentally acting in antithesis of the foundation of their economic thought... It's 'necessity' was brought on at least in large part because of those same thoughts. The issue is either they had to save the economy and betray decades of rhetoric, or stay consistent and watch their ideological nonsense bring about the greatest economic disaster in history... As for the free money, don't play dumb... Well, unless you're not playing? What 'thoughts' are you referring to? The crisis was mainly a run on the financial system which had little to do with deregulation or free market ideology, assuming that's what you are getting at. By free money are you referencing the low interest rate environment? Banks make money on the spread between one rate and another. It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%, so long as the spread is positive. Not sure what you think matters here.
I see you approve of Geithner's retelling of the events, in particular his framing of the crisis as caused by a simple credulous faith in what turned out to be a bubble with no regard for the social and cognitive landscape in the financial industry that allowed the bubble to inflate in the first place. As Stewart remarked, Geithner took the arsonists off the burning plane for a nice massage and steak dinner while telling the battered and bruised crash landing victims, "sorry you lost your house and most of your wealth, but at least you are slightly more likely to have a job now than if we hadn't given the arsonists their cushy, bonus-filled landing."
What a nice return on TARP all the tax payers are getting to go with their austerity politics. Should cover the gap to keep taxes low on the rich for a few months while the taxpayers get low-wage replacements for their middle- and high-wage jobs lost in 2008 and move into the low rent apt to replace their foreclosed on house.
@GH
It would be better if you just spoke plainly what you are talking about exactly. This is a thread not a PM.
|
On May 24 2014 02:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 02:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 02:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
TARP was great. Obama should be glad he's being credited for it. LOL? You don't see a problem with 47% of people not being able to comprehend an incredibly simple and provable fact? Your takeaway was that Obama should be happy that people are totally oblivious? That's an insatiably cynical view. TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks. Yeah but which administrations watch it became a necessity isn't a small deal...Whatever you want to call it, it certainly was the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives say they stand for... That's the only logical reason I can think of for people being so terribly ignorant. TARP was so the opposite of what conservatives/Republicans claim they stand for people just assume it had to of been Democrats who called for it. TARP wasn't the free money, the 0% interest money they are turning around and lending for a profit was/is the free money. But without it, the whole global economy would collapse, so we keep giving them money and they keep taking more for themselves. Yeah TARP is nominally the opposite of what Republicans / conservatives stand for. That's why it failed the first vote in the house: Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it. Republicans were a bit more kind the second go around: Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote. SourceMost Republicans did and do hate the idea of a bailout. It was only done because it was really necessary. What free money are you referencing? It isn't/wasn't just nominally against it, it was fundamentally acting in antithesis of the foundation of their economic thought... It's 'necessity' was brought on at least in large part because of those same thoughts. The issue is either they had to save the economy and betray decades of rhetoric, or stay consistent and watch their ideological nonsense bring about the greatest economic disaster in history... As for the free money, don't play dumb... Well, unless you're not playing? What 'thoughts' are you referring to? The crisis was mainly a run on the financial system which had little to do with deregulation or free market ideology, assuming that's what you are getting at. By free money are you referencing the low interest rate environment? Banks make money on the spread between one rate and another. It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%, so long as the spread is positive. Not sure what you think matters here. "It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%" just let that sink in for a while... Umm, did you have counter argument or are you just using quote that 'looks bad'? That's not the only free money either... you know that right? Why don't you just state what you are talking about? It's pretty obvious on it's face. I guess you asking why, is in the same vein of wondering what free money I'm talking about. Either it's obvious because you are informed on the subject and you are asking questions you already know the answer to, or you are pretty oblivious to the situation. I know you are intelligent enough to have figured this out on your own so I have no desire to hold your hand through an explanation.
To paraphrase, "I have no idea what i'm talking about, just regurgitating populist rhetoric. You should know what I mean"
|
On May 24 2014 02:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 02:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 23 2014 17:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Could you imagine the rhetoric had the Bush administration and Republicans been able to privatize social security and injected that money into the financial crisis pushing the collapse just past the end of his presidency? Could you imagine if instead of Bush it was Obama who had to pass TARP? Not that facts matter to Americans.... Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama.
SourceLike seriously... I was clearly too ambitious wanting to get universal agreement on the earth being >~9,000 years old... How the shit is this possible? 'Don't Know' was an option.... I seriously don't understand how this happens? Is disinformation that powerful, is it just (internalized) prejudice against democrats, probably some combination of that and more? TARP was great. Obama should be glad he's being credited for it. LOL? You don't see a problem with 47% of people not being able to comprehend an incredibly simple and provable fact? Your takeaway was that Obama should be happy that people are totally oblivious? That's an insatiably cynical view. TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks. Yeah but which administrations watch it became a necessity isn't a small deal...Whatever you want to call it, it certainly was the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives say they stand for... That's the only logical reason I can think of for people being so terribly ignorant. TARP was so the opposite of what conservatives/Republicans claim they stand for people just assume it had to of been Democrats who called for it. TARP wasn't the free money, the 0% interest money they are turning around and lending for a profit was/is the free money. But without it, the whole global economy would collapse, so we keep giving them money and they keep taking more for themselves. Yeah TARP is nominally the opposite of what Republicans / conservatives stand for. That's why it failed the first vote in the house: Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it. Republicans were a bit more kind the second go around: Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote. SourceMost Republicans did and do hate the idea of a bailout. It was only done because it was really necessary. What free money are you referencing? It isn't/wasn't just nominally against it, it was fundamentally acting in antithesis of the foundation of their economic thought... It's 'necessity' was brought on at least in large part because of those same thoughts. The issue is either they had to save the economy and betray decades of rhetoric, or stay consistent and watch their ideological nonsense bring about the greatest economic disaster in history... As for the free money, don't play dumb... Well, unless you're not playing? What 'thoughts' are you referring to? The crisis was mainly a run on the financial system which had little to do with deregulation or free market ideology, assuming that's what you are getting at. By free money are you referencing the low interest rate environment? Banks make money on the spread between one rate and another. It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%, so long as the spread is positive. Not sure what you think matters here. I see you approve of Geithner's retelling of the events, in particular his framing of the crisis as caused by a simple credulous faith in what turned out to be a bubble with no regard for the social and cognitive landscape in the financial industry that allowed the bubble to inflate in the first place. As Stewart remarked, Geithner took the arsonists off the burning plane for a nice massage and steak dinner while telling the battered and bruised crash landing victims, "sorry you lost your house and most of your wealth, but at least you are slightly more likely to have a job now than if we hadn't given the arsonists their cushy, bonus-filled landing." What a nice return on TARP all the tax payers are getting to go with their austerity politics. Should cover the gap to keep taxes low on the rich for a few months while the taxpayers get low-wage replacements for their middle- and high-wage jobs lost in 2008 and move into the low rent apt to replace their foreclosed on house. @GH It would be better if you just spoke plainly what you are talking about exactly.
He knows exactly what I'm talking about, I'm done playing silly games with him. But if you are curious, part of what I am talking about was the billions of $$$ each year financial institutions are being gifted in exchange for doing essentially what common sense told them they should of been doing before the crisis.
I have no idea what i'm talking about, just regurgitating populist rhetoric.
That was an odd admission from you Wolfstan, but thank you for confirming what I already presumed.
|
On May 24 2014 03:06 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 02:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 02:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 02:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
LOL? You don't see a problem with 47% of people not being able to comprehend an incredibly simple and provable fact?
Your takeaway was that Obama should be happy that people are totally oblivious? That's an insatiably cynical view. TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks. Yeah but which administrations watch it became a necessity isn't a small deal...Whatever you want to call it, it certainly was the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives say they stand for... That's the only logical reason I can think of for people being so terribly ignorant. TARP was so the opposite of what conservatives/Republicans claim they stand for people just assume it had to of been Democrats who called for it. TARP wasn't the free money, the 0% interest money they are turning around and lending for a profit was/is the free money. But without it, the whole global economy would collapse, so we keep giving them money and they keep taking more for themselves. Yeah TARP is nominally the opposite of what Republicans / conservatives stand for. That's why it failed the first vote in the house: Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it. Republicans were a bit more kind the second go around: Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote. SourceMost Republicans did and do hate the idea of a bailout. It was only done because it was really necessary. What free money are you referencing? It isn't/wasn't just nominally against it, it was fundamentally acting in antithesis of the foundation of their economic thought... It's 'necessity' was brought on at least in large part because of those same thoughts. The issue is either they had to save the economy and betray decades of rhetoric, or stay consistent and watch their ideological nonsense bring about the greatest economic disaster in history... As for the free money, don't play dumb... Well, unless you're not playing? What 'thoughts' are you referring to? The crisis was mainly a run on the financial system which had little to do with deregulation or free market ideology, assuming that's what you are getting at. By free money are you referencing the low interest rate environment? Banks make money on the spread between one rate and another. It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%, so long as the spread is positive. Not sure what you think matters here. "It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%" just let that sink in for a while... Umm, did you have counter argument or are you just using quote that 'looks bad'? That's not the only free money either... you know that right? Why don't you just state what you are talking about? It's pretty obvious on it's face. I guess you asking why, is in the same vein of wondering what free money I'm talking about. Either it's obvious because you are informed on the subject and you are asking questions you already know the answer to, or you are pretty oblivious to the situation. I know you are intelligent enough to have figured this out on your own so I have no desire to hold your hand through an explanation. To paraphrase, "I have no idea what i'm talking about, just regurgitating populist rhetoric. You should know what I mean" This is really the aggrandizement of making arguments in absentia. He declares an argument to exist against the point by hinting at its existence. He then condescendingly invites the reader to discover it or, he's too dumb because "It's pretty obvious on it's face and maybe "you are pretty oblivious to the situation." Any attempt by himself at explaining ... himself ... is hand-holding. This is perhaps the best example of:
2. No arguments in absentia.
In other words, do not argue using language that presumes conclusions that not everyone might share. If you think religion is hogwash, then intelligently and deliberately point out how you have come to this conclusion. Do not simply say “religion is garbage”, for it makes you look like a presumptuous fool and it degrades the entire conversation. If every poster attempted to be less unequivocal and more expository, the world of TL would be a better place.
|
On May 24 2014 03:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 03:06 Wolfstan wrote:On May 24 2014 02:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 02:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 02:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks. Yeah but which administrations watch it became a necessity isn't a small deal...Whatever you want to call it, it certainly was the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives say they stand for... That's the only logical reason I can think of for people being so terribly ignorant. TARP was so the opposite of what conservatives/Republicans claim they stand for people just assume it had to of been Democrats who called for it. TARP wasn't the free money, the 0% interest money they are turning around and lending for a profit was/is the free money. But without it, the whole global economy would collapse, so we keep giving them money and they keep taking more for themselves. Yeah TARP is nominally the opposite of what Republicans / conservatives stand for. That's why it failed the first vote in the house: Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it. Republicans were a bit more kind the second go around: Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote. SourceMost Republicans did and do hate the idea of a bailout. It was only done because it was really necessary. What free money are you referencing? It isn't/wasn't just nominally against it, it was fundamentally acting in antithesis of the foundation of their economic thought... It's 'necessity' was brought on at least in large part because of those same thoughts. The issue is either they had to save the economy and betray decades of rhetoric, or stay consistent and watch their ideological nonsense bring about the greatest economic disaster in history... As for the free money, don't play dumb... Well, unless you're not playing? What 'thoughts' are you referring to? The crisis was mainly a run on the financial system which had little to do with deregulation or free market ideology, assuming that's what you are getting at. By free money are you referencing the low interest rate environment? Banks make money on the spread between one rate and another. It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%, so long as the spread is positive. Not sure what you think matters here. "It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%" just let that sink in for a while... Umm, did you have counter argument or are you just using quote that 'looks bad'? That's not the only free money either... you know that right? Why don't you just state what you are talking about? It's pretty obvious on it's face. I guess you asking why, is in the same vein of wondering what free money I'm talking about. Either it's obvious because you are informed on the subject and you are asking questions you already know the answer to, or you are pretty oblivious to the situation. I know you are intelligent enough to have figured this out on your own so I have no desire to hold your hand through an explanation. To paraphrase, "I have no idea what i'm talking about, just regurgitating populist rhetoric. You should know what I mean" This is really the aggrandizement of making arguments in absentia. He declares an argument to exist against the point by hinting at its existence. He then condescendingly invites the reader to discover it or, he's too dumb because "It's pretty obvious on it's face and maybe "you are pretty oblivious to the situation." Any attempt by himself at explaining ... himself ... is hand-holding. This is perhaps the best example of: Show nested quote +2. No arguments in absentia.
In other words, do not argue using language that presumes conclusions that not everyone might share. If you think religion is hogwash, then intelligently and deliberately point out how you have come to this conclusion. Do not simply say “religion is garbage”, for it makes you look like a presumptuous fool and it degrades the entire conversation. If every poster attempted to be less unequivocal and more expository, the world of TL would be a better place.
If you want to sincerely engage I'll entertain that with you, or pretty much anyone else. But Jonny has made it abundantly clear that he has no interest in that. As a result I am done playing childish games with him.
As for absentia, I and many others have already outlined 'Free money', the contributions to the collapse, and how TARP is the antithesis of conservative rhetoric.
Johnny was there for all of that, so yes either he knows the answers to the questions he is asking or he has ignored/disagreed with the evidence presented here previously.
I am not going to go back and link every relevant comment or reexplain every claim/position every time it comes up. ESPECIALLY not with Jonny (who has repeatedly nonchalantly disengaged when his claim/position falls apart).
|
On May 24 2014 02:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 02:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 23 2014 17:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Could you imagine the rhetoric had the Bush administration and Republicans been able to privatize social security and injected that money into the financial crisis pushing the collapse just past the end of his presidency? Could you imagine if instead of Bush it was Obama who had to pass TARP? Not that facts matter to Americans.... Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama.
SourceLike seriously... I was clearly too ambitious wanting to get universal agreement on the earth being >~9,000 years old... How the shit is this possible? 'Don't Know' was an option.... I seriously don't understand how this happens? Is disinformation that powerful, is it just (internalized) prejudice against democrats, probably some combination of that and more? TARP was great. Obama should be glad he's being credited for it. LOL? You don't see a problem with 47% of people not being able to comprehend an incredibly simple and provable fact? Your takeaway was that Obama should be happy that people are totally oblivious? That's an insatiably cynical view. TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks. Yeah but which administrations watch it became a necessity isn't a small deal...Whatever you want to call it, it certainly was the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives say they stand for... That's the only logical reason I can think of for people being so terribly ignorant. TARP was so the opposite of what conservatives/Republicans claim they stand for people just assume it had to of been Democrats who called for it. TARP wasn't the free money, the 0% interest money they are turning around and lending for a profit was/is the free money. But without it, the whole global economy would collapse, so we keep giving them money and they keep taking more for themselves. Yeah TARP is nominally the opposite of what Republicans / conservatives stand for. That's why it failed the first vote in the house: Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it. Republicans were a bit more kind the second go around: Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote. SourceMost Republicans did and do hate the idea of a bailout. It was only done because it was really necessary. What free money are you referencing? It isn't/wasn't just nominally against it, it was fundamentally acting in antithesis of the foundation of their economic thought... It's 'necessity' was brought on at least in large part because of those same thoughts. The issue is either they had to save the economy and betray decades of rhetoric, or stay consistent and watch their ideological nonsense bring about the greatest economic disaster in history... As for the free money, don't play dumb... Well, unless you're not playing? What 'thoughts' are you referring to? The crisis was mainly a run on the financial system which had little to do with deregulation or free market ideology, assuming that's what you are getting at. By free money are you referencing the low interest rate environment? Banks make money on the spread between one rate and another. It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%, so long as the spread is positive. Not sure what you think matters here. I see you approve of Geithner's retelling of the events, in particular his framing of the crisis as caused by a simple credulous faith in what turned out to be a bubble with no regard for the social and cognitive landscape in the financial industry that allowed the bubble to inflate in the first place. As Stewart remarked, Geithner took the arsonists off the burning plane for a nice massage and steak dinner while telling the battered and bruised crash landing victims, "sorry you lost your house and most of your wealth, but at least you are slightly more likely to have a job now than if we hadn't given the arsonists their cushy, bonus-filled landing." What a nice return on TARP all the tax payers are getting to go with their austerity politics. Should cover the gap to keep taxes low on the rich for a few months while the taxpayers get low-wage replacements for their middle- and high-wage jobs lost in 2008 and move into the low rent apt to replace their foreclosed on house. @GH It would be better if you just spoke plainly what you are talking about exactly. This is a thread not a PM.
The main reason we had a crisis was that there was a run in a part of the financial system that the Fed didn't have direct access to. Analogies like arsonists on a plane don't really fly.
|
On May 24 2014 07:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 02:38 IgnE wrote:On May 24 2014 02:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 23 2014 17:36 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Could you imagine the rhetoric had the Bush administration and Republicans been able to privatize social security and injected that money into the financial crisis pushing the collapse just past the end of his presidency? Could you imagine if instead of Bush it was Obama who had to pass TARP? Not that facts matter to Americans.... [quote] SourceLike seriously... I was clearly too ambitious wanting to get universal agreement on the earth being >~9,000 years old... How the shit is this possible? 'Don't Know' was an option.... I seriously don't understand how this happens? Is disinformation that powerful, is it just (internalized) prejudice against democrats, probably some combination of that and more? TARP was great. Obama should be glad he's being credited for it. LOL? You don't see a problem with 47% of people not being able to comprehend an incredibly simple and provable fact? Your takeaway was that Obama should be happy that people are totally oblivious? That's an insatiably cynical view. TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks. Yeah but which administrations watch it became a necessity isn't a small deal...Whatever you want to call it, it certainly was the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives say they stand for... That's the only logical reason I can think of for people being so terribly ignorant. TARP was so the opposite of what conservatives/Republicans claim they stand for people just assume it had to of been Democrats who called for it. TARP wasn't the free money, the 0% interest money they are turning around and lending for a profit was/is the free money. But without it, the whole global economy would collapse, so we keep giving them money and they keep taking more for themselves. Yeah TARP is nominally the opposite of what Republicans / conservatives stand for. That's why it failed the first vote in the house: Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it. Republicans were a bit more kind the second go around: Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote. SourceMost Republicans did and do hate the idea of a bailout. It was only done because it was really necessary. What free money are you referencing? It isn't/wasn't just nominally against it, it was fundamentally acting in antithesis of the foundation of their economic thought... It's 'necessity' was brought on at least in large part because of those same thoughts. The issue is either they had to save the economy and betray decades of rhetoric, or stay consistent and watch their ideological nonsense bring about the greatest economic disaster in history... As for the free money, don't play dumb... Well, unless you're not playing? What 'thoughts' are you referring to? The crisis was mainly a run on the financial system which had little to do with deregulation or free market ideology, assuming that's what you are getting at. By free money are you referencing the low interest rate environment? Banks make money on the spread between one rate and another. It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%, so long as the spread is positive. Not sure what you think matters here. I see you approve of Geithner's retelling of the events, in particular his framing of the crisis as caused by a simple credulous faith in what turned out to be a bubble with no regard for the social and cognitive landscape in the financial industry that allowed the bubble to inflate in the first place. As Stewart remarked, Geithner took the arsonists off the burning plane for a nice massage and steak dinner while telling the battered and bruised crash landing victims, "sorry you lost your house and most of your wealth, but at least you are slightly more likely to have a job now than if we hadn't given the arsonists their cushy, bonus-filled landing." What a nice return on TARP all the tax payers are getting to go with their austerity politics. Should cover the gap to keep taxes low on the rich for a few months while the taxpayers get low-wage replacements for their middle- and high-wage jobs lost in 2008 and move into the low rent apt to replace their foreclosed on house. @GH It would be better if you just spoke plainly what you are talking about exactly. This is a thread not a PM. The main reason we had a crisis was that there was a run in a part of the financial system that the Fed didn't have direct access to. Analogies like arsonists on a plane don't really fly.
Why was that the main reason? What caused the run you are describing? Why/how didn't the Fed have access? What's wrong with the analogy?
|
On May 24 2014 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 07:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 02:38 IgnE wrote:On May 24 2014 02:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 24 2014 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2014 00:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
TARP was great. Obama should be glad he's being credited for it. LOL? You don't see a problem with 47% of people not being able to comprehend an incredibly simple and provable fact? Your takeaway was that Obama should be happy that people are totally oblivious? That's an insatiably cynical view. TARP lived longer under Obama than Bush and Obama made many decisions regarding TARP, so I can see why the confusion exists. I'd be happy if most people just knew wtf TARP actually was. People still act as though it was a gift of free money to the banks. Yeah but which administrations watch it became a necessity isn't a small deal...Whatever you want to call it, it certainly was the opposite of what Republicans/Conservatives say they stand for... That's the only logical reason I can think of for people being so terribly ignorant. TARP was so the opposite of what conservatives/Republicans claim they stand for people just assume it had to of been Democrats who called for it. TARP wasn't the free money, the 0% interest money they are turning around and lending for a profit was/is the free money. But without it, the whole global economy would collapse, so we keep giving them money and they keep taking more for themselves. Yeah TARP is nominally the opposite of what Republicans / conservatives stand for. That's why it failed the first vote in the house: Democrats voted 140–95 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 133–65 against it. Republicans were a bit more kind the second go around: Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the legislation, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it; overall, 33 Democrats and 24 Republicans who had previously voted against the bill supported it on the second vote. SourceMost Republicans did and do hate the idea of a bailout. It was only done because it was really necessary. What free money are you referencing? It isn't/wasn't just nominally against it, it was fundamentally acting in antithesis of the foundation of their economic thought... It's 'necessity' was brought on at least in large part because of those same thoughts. The issue is either they had to save the economy and betray decades of rhetoric, or stay consistent and watch their ideological nonsense bring about the greatest economic disaster in history... As for the free money, don't play dumb... Well, unless you're not playing? What 'thoughts' are you referring to? The crisis was mainly a run on the financial system which had little to do with deregulation or free market ideology, assuming that's what you are getting at. By free money are you referencing the low interest rate environment? Banks make money on the spread between one rate and another. It doesn't matter if they borrow at 0% or 5%, so long as the spread is positive. Not sure what you think matters here. I see you approve of Geithner's retelling of the events, in particular his framing of the crisis as caused by a simple credulous faith in what turned out to be a bubble with no regard for the social and cognitive landscape in the financial industry that allowed the bubble to inflate in the first place. As Stewart remarked, Geithner took the arsonists off the burning plane for a nice massage and steak dinner while telling the battered and bruised crash landing victims, "sorry you lost your house and most of your wealth, but at least you are slightly more likely to have a job now than if we hadn't given the arsonists their cushy, bonus-filled landing." What a nice return on TARP all the tax payers are getting to go with their austerity politics. Should cover the gap to keep taxes low on the rich for a few months while the taxpayers get low-wage replacements for their middle- and high-wage jobs lost in 2008 and move into the low rent apt to replace their foreclosed on house. @GH It would be better if you just spoke plainly what you are talking about exactly. This is a thread not a PM. The main reason we had a crisis was that there was a run in a part of the financial system that the Fed didn't have direct access to. Analogies like arsonists on a plane don't really fly. Why was that the main reason?
Credit cycles don't normally cause a financial crisis. Nor does a boom and bust in a particular industry (read: housing) normally cause a financial crisis. For example, the bust of the 2000's dot com bubble didn't cause a financial crisis. Prior to the crisis the housing boom was re-balancing, largely with growing exports.
What caused the run you are describing?
It's similar to a bank run. Investors fear that they won't get their money back and pull funds. In the case of money markets there is a maturity transformation involved between people who put money into the fund and those who borrow from it. Same as with traditional banks. And like traditional banks, the money market funds had no way to raise funds fast enough to prevent a run.
Why/how didn't the Fed have access?
The Fed offers liquidity to banks. Money market mutual funds are not banks.
After Lehman collapsed the Fed started instituting 'emergency' liquidity programs that went beyond their normal reach. But that was after the run had already caused havoc, and even then we still needed TARP.
What's wrong with the analogy?
Arsonists deliberately try to set things on fire. I don't think the relevant story is that people purposely set the financial system on fire.
|
On May 24 2014 08:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Credit cycles don't normally cause a financial crisis. Nor does a boom and bust in a particular industry (read: housing) normally cause a financial crisis.
Well we have had three catastrophically big housing bubbles screwing over economies over the last two decades. (namely Japan, the US, Spain). I think that qualifies as "usually".
The big problem is that investing into nonsense today makes more sense than investing into the real economy. Right before the Japanese housing bubble burst Tokyo alone was worth 2/3 of the worlds whole housing market. We need to put rules in place that stop such idiotic practices.
|
On May 24 2014 08:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2014 08:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Credit cycles don't normally cause a financial crisis. Nor does a boom and bust in a particular industry (read: housing) normally cause a financial crisis. Well we have had three catastrophically big housing bubbles screwing over economies over the last two decades. (namely Japan, the US, Spain). I think that qualifies as "usually". The big problem is that investing into nonsense today makes more sense than investing into the real economy. Right before the Japanese housing bubble burst Tokyo alone was worth 2/3 of the worlds whole housing market. We need to put rules in place that stop such idiotic practices.
A housing bust can certainly cause a recession, but that's different than a financial crisis like the one we just had. Real estate booms and busts all the time. Once in a generation financial crisis don't.
You have a source for the Tokyo real estate value? That sounds hard to believe.
Edit: Housing is cyclical. It's natural for housing booms and busts to follow the general economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
