Jump to content

Obama's Report Card...


marolyn

Recommended Posts

Bush went to war...to catch "the 9/11 terrorists", and somehow Sadam was one of them? am i remembering this wrong? As for Clinton's sin...his mistake was getting caught.

And just to be clear, I was pleased with how Bush reacted after 9/11. So was most of the country. Everyone I know agrees that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do there. It was after he started pushing for Iraq that a lot of people started to actually begin to hate him.

So you guys are saying you liked Sadam in power?

That guy was the next Hitler, and to be politically correct, the 911 terrorism card hard to be pulled in order to take him down. Obviously we didn't do it "for the Iraqi people", and there was most certainly money involved... I say OH WELL. How is it a bad thing that we have one less Hitler to worry about?

As far as giving up on Bin Laden and going after Sadam: Of course! Ideally we should have gotten both of them, but we could not have done both simultaneously and Sadam was clearly a more dangerous target - here's why: Sadam had access to a lot more money and weapons than Bin Laden did - mix that with Sadam's history of instability, and you have the perfect terrorist... only Sadam wouldn't have flew a plane into a building... he would have flew a nuclear bomb into a whole city.

And how come everyone hates Bush for making the first move? Sadam was nowhere near innocent to begin with. Had we not taken out Sadam and he ended up attacking us, I bet you guys would be the same people bashing Bush for not learning from 911 and taking the proper action. Either way you look at it, the guy just can't win because you refuse to let him.

You might not agree with it, but at the end of the day you simply cannot tell me Iraq was just for the money. If that's the case I'd venture to question why you guys support Sadam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ They wanted us to believe that Iraq was part of the terrorist thing, which it wasn't. They lied to us, tricked us, manipulated us and conned us into agreeing to do this thing, which had NOTHING to do with what they said we would be fighting for. Saddam was not a good guy, hell no, but he wasn't the one who piloted planes into the WTC. We got so wrapped up in taking out Saddam that we forgot all about the people who actually attacked us. That's the thing that bugs me about it. We were off fighting these "terrorists" who had nothing to do with what happened to us, while the men responsible were all but forgotten. To me, that is dispicable. We could have waited to get Saddam, if getting him was so absolutely vital to the well being of America. We could have taken care of our business in Afghanistan, taken care of Bin Laden and the Taliban, and helped set up a stable government for the people over there and then gone after Saddam. But we didn't. Regardless of what you think, I say Bush screwed up. He shouldn't have done it the way he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's one of the more ignorant things I've heard. Just because you don't agree with what he did doesn't mean he sat on his ass the whole time or that he's entirely to blame for the poor state we're in. You simply cannot blame him for everything that's wrong. For example, people look at the market crash as somehow being his fault just because they didn't like him, and that's borderline retarded. How come the market crashes in 1929 and 1987 weren't the presidents' fault?

P.S., if taking immediate action after 911 = sitting on his ass..., I wish presidents sat on their asses more often. If I remember correctly, the majority of people we're all about taking action, and we were united and proud to be Americans... now all the sudden nobody likes the guy? B.S.

I'm not saying he didn't do anything wrong... he did. But half the reason people think he sucks is because it's the popular thing to do - no one looks into the issues.

There is nothing ignorant about our opinions (you can find plenty of facts to back up our opinions as common sense). Bush is in very large part to blame for the huge mess we are in (and not just the Economy). In eight long years, what "good" did he do to improve: The Environment, Healthcare, Social Security, Education, so on and so forth)...What good do you think was accomplished? Lets not forget all the wonderful military who have fought his god awful war, and are still over there...and the outrageous rate of unemployment. Bush began with a nice surplus and our country is now bankrupt...the fault of "the last Administration". If you look at his record, bad decision/policy through and through. AFAIC Bush is borderline retarded, in your words.

Stop calling people ignorant because they don't agree with you...or maybe because they see things more clearly than you do. Docron, it's not "suddenly" that people don't like this guy, where have you been the past eight years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATTN: MONA

You still won't consider what I have to say? Please at least acknowledge it!

Waiting to get Sadam would have been a highly questionable tactic.

These countries know they can't beat us outright by themselves... Sadam could have doubled the effects of any attack if he acted right away after 911, while we were still in a state of dis-array.

We were having trouble finding Bin Laden... leaving the bulk of our armies and attention in Afghanistan for too long would have created a perfect window for someone to kick us while we were down.

The only problem with striking first is that we will never know what might have happened. We could have p1ssed around and waited, but no one ever thinks about the what if. What if Sadam attacked us while we were still looking for those responsible for 911? No offense to those who perished in 911, but having a city nuked would make 911 look like a play date...

Being attacked a second time by a totally different country while we were still coming up empty with Bin Laden would have been the worst possible outcome and would have gotten Bush crucified far beyond what you can imagine. You cannot blame Bush for not wanting this to happen.

So maybe we will never know if or if not Sadam would have attacked us... That's fine by me because he was a threat in more ways than one. Say he never ended up attacking us.., he still treated the Iraqi people horribly, and we would have constantly had to worry about the possibility of being nuked. If you ask me, Bush was smart taking Sadam out. He eliminated an imminent threat and made it look a little better by helping the Iraqi people along the way.

I acknowledge that we were lied to, and I don't even fully agree with the goings-on.., hell I don't even like Bush... All I'm trying to do is to get people to look at all the possible angles instead of putting their judgment on auto-pilot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ They wanted us to believe that Iraq was part of the terrorist thing, which it wasn't. They lied to us, tricked us, manipulated us and conned us into agreeing to do this thing, which had NOTHING to do with what they said we would be fighting for. Saddam was not a good guy, hell no, but he wasn't the one who piloted planes into the WTC. We got so wrapped up in taking out Saddam that we forgot all about the people who actually attacked us. That's the thing that bugs me about it. We were off fighting these "terrorists" who had nothing to do with what happened to us, while the men responsible were all but forgotten. To me, that is dispicable. We could have waited to get Saddam, if getting him was so absolutely vital to the well being of America. We could have taken care of our business in Afghanistan, taken care of Bin Laden and the Taliban, and helped set up a stable government for the people over there and then gone after Saddam. But we didn't. Regardless of what you think, I say Bush screwed up. He shouldn't have done it the way he did.

:goodpost: Still looking for those weapons of mass destruction that they were talking about B) I think that Obama has to be given some time before he gets his report card. This is the toughest, most important job that he is doing(talk about pressure). The Media needs to stop looking at him like he is a rock star!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

This is assinine!

Yep!

Blame everything on Bush!

Typical!

Hey, i used that word for Spats :)

Bush deserves blame for many of the major problems with my country...especially what a large group of Americans are feeling now...so i do blame him (and i'm not in a minority here, you just disagree because you like him). IF you were the one out of a job (no matter what party you voted for) i bet you would have a slightly different opinion right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These countries know they can't beat us outright by themselves... Sadam could have doubled the effects of any attack if he acted right away after 911, while we were still in a state of dis-array.

He could have, but there wasn't (and still isn't) any sign that he was going to do that.

We were having trouble finding Bin Laden... leaving the bulk of our armies and attention in Afghanistan for too long would have created a perfect window for someone to kick us while we were down.

We wouldn't be having trouble finding him if we had put more of an effort into it, if we weren't so focused on Saddam and Iraq.

The only problem with striking first is that we will never know what might have happened. We could have p1ssed around and waited, but no one ever thinks about the what if. What if Sadam attacked us while we were still looking for those responsible for 911? No offense to those who perished in 911, but having a city nuked would make 911 look like a play date...

Being attacked a second time by a totally different country while we were still coming up empty with Bin Laden would have been the worst possible outcome and would have gotten Bush crucified far beyond what you can imagine. You cannot blame Bush for not wanting this to happen.

Once again: there was no evidence that Saddam was going to attack us. We still haven't found those WMDs, you know.

So maybe we will never know if or if not Sadam would have attacked us... That's fine by me because he was a threat in more ways than one. Say he never ended up attacking us.., he still treated the Iraqi people horribly, and we would have constantly had to worry about the possibility of being nuked. If you ask me, Bush was smart taking Sadam out. He eliminated an imminent threat and made it look a little better by helping the Iraqi people along the way.

Like I said, it probably would have been wise to take Saddam out eventually. But I don't think Bush did it right at all.

I acknowledge that we were lied to, and I don't even fully agree with the goings-on.., hell I don't even like Bush... All I'm trying to do is to get people to look at all the possible angles instead of putting their judgment on auto-pilot.

Listen, you have your opinion and I have mine. They're both valid. The thing is, though, that we both have these opinions because of how we've interpreted the actions of the past eight years. It isn't "auto-pilot." I say the things I say about Bush for a reason: because that's how I view his presidency, because that's the conclusion that I've come to over the years. It's like science: you don't spend years developing a theory and then just throw it away because other people don't like it. If you find some evidence that conteracts your theory, then you throw it away. If something happened during the Bush presidency to make me view his term differently, then I would. The thing is that none of that "counter evidence" has come up. There isn't any reason I should think differently about the Bush administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you guys are saying you liked Sadam in power?

That guy was the next Hitler, and to be politically correct, the 911 terrorism card hard to be pulled in order to take him down. Obviously we didn't do it "for the Iraqi people", and there was most certainly money involved... I say OH WELL. How is it a bad thing that we have one less Hitler to worry about?

As far as giving up on Bin Laden and going after Sadam: Of course! Ideally we should have gotten both of them, but we could not have done both simultaneously and Sadam was clearly a more dangerous target - here's why: Sadam had access to a lot more money and weapons than Bin Laden did - mix that with Sadam's history of instability, and you have the perfect terrorist... only Sadam wouldn't have flew a plane into a building... he would have flew a nuclear bomb into a whole city.

And how come everyone hates Bush for making the first move? Sadam was nowhere near innocent to begin with. Had we not taken out Sadam and he ended up attacking us, I bet you guys would be the same people bashing Bush for not learning from 911 and taking the proper action. Either way you look at it, the guy just can't win because you refuse to let him.

You might not agree with it, but at the end of the day you simply cannot tell me Iraq was just for the money. If that's the case I'd venture to question why you guys support Sadam.

Who the hell says they liked Sadam in power? NOT the point of the 9/11 terrorist attacks bringing on a war to catch those responsible. Did you go over to Iraq to fight? If not, what do you know? If so, i will gladly listen to what you have to say about the experience.

Bush went after Bin Laden, he should have been the one to catch him. My comment was in response to some twit who asked why Obama hasn't caught him yet...not Obama's job. Would be nice if it ever happens, but he didn't start that fire...

and if you don't understand the Bush motives by now...that's your ignorancy. I think it was discussed quite extensively in the past...Bush didn't do anything for "the AVERAGE American".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, i used that word for Spats :)

Bush deserves blame for many of the major problems with my country...especially what a large group of Americans are feeling now...so i do blame him (and i'm not in a minority here, you just disagree because you like him). IF you were the one out of a job (no matter what party you voted for) i bet you would have a slightly different opinion right now.

Hi tangerine!

Yes, I do like Bush.

But he had nothing to do with causing 9/11 as that link was about.

And, he had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis, Madoff, and all the other things he is being accused of, with the exception of the war in Iraq.

The job losses are directly related to the stoppage of the economy due to the halt of lending by the banks, which is a result of their greed in knowingly lending money in the past to people who couldn't pay it back.

If I was out of a job, I would not blame it on Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Bush is gone,a long time ago.WTF has this to with Obama? :rolleyes:

S***! never stops,do it? :slapface:

KB

That sounds like forgetting the past to me. The very recent past that has left such a mess. How can you make it sound like "a long time ago"? I think part of the issue with some people is they haven't felt the impact of Bush. I believe that Americans who are suffering financially...or who have lost loved ones in the war...feel differently from those who are still fortunate enough to be doing well.

Why am i talking about Bush? Because people are trying to say Obama should have fixed his stinking mess, lol. Like God could fix the mess Bush left, i doubt it. To even ask how Obama is doing so soon is absolute silliness anyway. Just a thread for people to bitch about Obama without a month behind him yet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing ignorant about our opinions (you can find plenty of facts to back up our opinions as common sense). Bush is in very large part to blame for the huge mess we are in (and not just the Economy). In eight long years, what "good" did he do to improve: The Environment, Healthcare, Social Security, Education, so on and so forth)...What good do you think was accomplished? Lets not forget all the wonderful military who have fought his god awful war, and are still over there...and the outrageous rate of unemployment. Bush began with a nice surplus and our country is now bankrupt...the fault of "the last Administration". If you look at his record, bad decision/policy through and through. AFAIC Bush is borderline retarded, in your words.

Stop calling people ignorant because they don't agree with you...or maybe because they see things more clearly than you do. Docron, it's not "suddenly" that people don't like this guy, where have you been the past eight years?

1) I don't call people ignorant for not agreeing with me... I call them ignorant because they aren't acknowledging all the possibilities, which is indeed ignorant. Read my above post. I'm not even pro-Bush.

2) Yes I know Bush has played a part in our current state - but no, he isn't to blame for every little thing that's gone wrong. He turned into peoples' scape goat once he made the call to invade Iraq.

3) I know it's not suddenly that people don't like Bush... I used "all the sudden" not as a time stamp but as a figure of speech to accentuate people's quick change of mind about going to war.

4) Regarding what Bush has done to help Social Security, Healthcare, Education, etc.: See federal spending breakdown below. Notice how most of those things you mentioned are on par with military/defense spending. The money was there - it's not Bush's fault nobody knew how to use it. Bush is not an expert in any of the fields you listed... the best he can do is allocate spending for the so-called experts to use.

chart.gif

5) Regarding the military: There was no draft. It's never good to go to war, but everyone in Iraq volunteered to fight, and if some of them don't believe in the war, why are they volunteering to be there? (Yes I realize other things come into play)

6) Surplus? Are you mad? Our country has been in the red for a-lot longer than 8 years. Our government has spent more money than they make EVERY YEAR SINCE 1969.

Do you seriously want to get into this with me? Despite your opinions of me, I'm pretty well educated on politics and a-lot of what you brought up is unjustified garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like forgetting the past to me. The very recent past that has left such a mess. How can you make it sound like "a long time ago"? I think part of the issue with some people is they haven't felt the impact of Bush. I believe that Americans who are suffering financially...or who have lost loved ones in the war...feel differently from those who are still fortunate enough to be doing well.

Why am i talking about Bush? Because people are trying to say Obama should have fixed his stinking mess, lol. Like God could fix the mess Bush left, i doubt it. To even ask how Obama is doing so soon is absolute silliness anyway. Just a thread for people to bitch about Obama without a month behind him yet...

Unfortunatly, Obama will have to clean up his mess. Honestly, if he undoes even half the damage that Bush brought around, I'll be happy with him as a president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MONA, you're missing the point of my posts. Everything you respond with is acknowledged in my post. I don't know if you're just skimming it or what?

Um...no, it's really not. I've been reading, maybe you're just not very clear.

If it makes you feel any better, I think you're also missing the point of mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi tangerine!

Yes, I do like Bush.

But he had nothing to do with causing 9/11 as that link was about.

And, he had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis, Madoff, and all the other things he is being accused of, with the exception of the war in Iraq.

The job losses are directly related to the stoppage of the economy due to the halt of lending by the banks, which is a result of their greed in knowingly lending money in the past to people who couldn't pay it back.

If I was out of a job, I would not blame it on Bush.

Bush knew the economy was declining for a long time and what did he do about it? Nothing! The deregulation that Bush and his Administration allowed made the average American vulnerable to this corruption. I posted some links in the past that spoke of when Bush knew things were bad and how he still told "us" how strong our Economy was. You can blame many Wall Street crooks, and i personally would like to see them all on trial for their crimes, but the President of any country is the person who has the ultimate duty to keep us safe. Especially keeping our Economy strong. Money is what makes a country powerful. Bush put our country into serious debt, and as a final farewell...the quickly forgotten "Bailout"... and people are criticizing Obama...what a hoot.

just a reminder:

Bush bailout overpaid banks, watchdog says

Feb 06, 2009 08:41 am

Jim Kuhnhenn

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration overpaid tens of billions of dollars for stocks and other assets in its massive bailout last year of Wall Street banks and financial institutions, a new study by a government watchdog says.

The Congressional Oversight Panel, in a report released today, said last year's overpayments amounted to a taxpayer-financed US$78 billion subsidy of the firms.

The findings added to the frustrations of lawmakers already wary of the $700 billion rescue plan, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Congress approved the plan last fall, but members of both parties criticized spending decisions by the Bush administration and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Financially ailing insurance giant American International Group, deemed by the Treasury Department to be too big to be allowed to fail, received $40 billion from the Treasury for assets valued at $14.8 billion, the oversight panel found.

The misgivings come as new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is preparing to place the Obama administration's imprint on the program with a sweeping new framework for helping banks, loosening credit and helping reduce foreclosures. Geithner plans to unveil the changes Monday.

In a bright spot for the rescue program, the same banks that received capital infusions from Treasury have already paid $271 million in dividends to the federal government and are expected to pay $1.5 billion more in dividends by the end of this month. Wells Fargo, which received a $25 billion infusion, has already announced it would pay Treasury $371 million in dividends this month.

The oversight panel examined 10 transactions, including eight made under a capital purchase program designed to put liquidity into the banks in hopes of easing credit. That money went to banks considered "healthy" financially but in need of capital to make loans.

Two other transactions went to AIG and to Citigroup Inc. under programs designed to help companies that were facing serious financial difficulties.

Overall, the panel and the analysts it retained to conduct the valuation study found that the Treasury used taxpayers' money to pay $62.5 billion more than the value of assets in the 10 transactions it examined. By extrapolating to the more than 300 institutions that received money, it concluded that the government in effect paid $78 billion more than the actual value of the asset at the time.

"Treasury chose to offer 'one size fits all' pricing in order to encourage all institutions to participate, and in so doing disregarded apparent differences in their financial condition," the report states. "A consequence is that Treasury effectively offered weaker participants greater subsidies than it offered to stronger participants."

Panel Chairwoman Elizabeth Warren, testifying to the Senate banking committee yesterday, said: "There may be good policy reasons for overpaying, but without a clearly delineated reason, we can't know that."

Reacting to the panel's conclusions, Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker said in a statement: "Treasury's efforts since the fall prevented a systemwide collapse, but more needs to be done to stabilize the financial sector, increase lending and protect taxpayer dollars."

He said the plan that Geithner will announce on Monday aims to free up credit, "while strengthening transparency and accountability measures so that taxpayers know where and how their money is being spent and whether it's achieving real results."

Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said the overpayment was sure to "raise eyebrows."

"I can understand some gap," he said. "No one is expecting perfection between the price you pay and what you think you're getting. But that's a pretty large disparity."

Another fund watchdog urged the Obama administration to be clearer about the true value of the nearly $300 billion the Treasury has infused into more than 300 institutions through purchases of assets such as preferred stock.

"Treasury needs, in the near term, to begin developing a more complete strategy on what to do with the very substantial portfolio that it now manages on behalf of the American people," said Neil Barofksy, the special inspector general for the rescue program.

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/583385

Edit: i forgot to address your original issue, the link i posted. That was in response to Dzldoc insinuating Clinton was at fault for us not having Bin Laden handed to us...and i honestly don't know what to make of that link, but it looks real...and it's not like i wouldn't "believe" it could be, because afaic, GWB has no integrity. Anyway, i figured that link would get some attention, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the leader of a country, sometimes you need to step up and make the tough choices. You just cannot afford to wait around and play good guy all day long when there's even the slightest possibility for something really bad happening. He took action instead of waiting for the what might have been.

I just wish somebody could respect that. What if it was you?

If it came down to even the slightest possibility of your country being attacked if you didn't take action, wouldn't you take action? I mean the guy is a threat regardless, rather it be a harmful dictator or a possible terrorist. I'd rather risk the lives of our brave soldiers to remove those possibilities than risk the lives of whole cities of innocent people because you were too late. Isn't that the reason we have the military in the first place?

Its a tough decision I know, but no one in their right mind would do it any different than he did if it came down to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presidents are the pupets of the banks and most of the rest of the world as well :rolleyes:

That is the truth. The sad truth... but it would be nice to have a President change that for the "average" person. But since Bush just made them richer with his bailout...we are that much poorer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the leader of a country, sometimes you need to step up and make the tough choices. You just cannot afford to wait around and play good guy all day long when there's even the slightest possibility for something really bad happening. He took action instead of waiting for the what might have been.

I just wish somebody could respect that. What if it was you?

If it came down to even the slightest possibility of your country being attacked if you didn't take action, wouldn't you take action? I mean the guy is a threat regardless, rather it be a harmful dictator or a possible terrorist. I'd rather risk the lives of our brave soldiers to remove those possibilities than risk the lives of whole cities of innocent people because you were too late. Isn't that the reason we have the military in the first place?

Its a tough decision I know, but no one in their right mind would do it any different than he did if it came down to it.

:slapface:

OK, look: It would have been better for him to keep going after the people that we KNEW were a threat to us, instead of chasing after the ones who MIGHT be. Don't YOU get THAT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: i forgot to address your original issue, the link i posted. That was in response to Dzldoc insinuating Clinton was at fault for us not having Bin Laden handed to us...and i honestly don't know what to make of that link, but it looks real...and it's not like i wouldn't "believe" it could be, because afaic, GWB has no integrity. Anyway, i figured that link would get some attention, lol.

Actually, I didn't even go to the link. Maybe I should have? I just seen your comment above it regarding Sadam and showed another way of looking at it so people might have both sides of the story.

As far as the bailouts go, see post to come...

(I love a good debate)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush knew the economy was declining for a long time and what did he do about it? Nothing! The deregulation that Bush and his Administration allowed made the average American vulnerable to this corruption. I posted some links in the past that spoke of when Bush knew things were bad and how he still told "us" how strong our Economy was. You can blame many Wall Street crooks, and i personally would like to see them all on trial for their crimes, but the President of any country is the person who has the ultimate duty to keep us safe. Especially keeping our Economy strong. Money is what makes a country powerful. Bush put our country into serious debt, and as a final farewell...the quickly forgotten "Bailout"... and people are criticizing Obama...what a hoot.

just a reminder:

Bush bailout overpaid banks, watchdog says

Feb 06, 2009 08:41 am

Jim Kuhnhenn

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration overpaid tens of billions of dollars for stocks and other assets in its massive bailout last year of Wall Street banks and financial institutions, a new study by a government watchdog says.

The Congressional Oversight Panel, in a report released today, said last year's overpayments amounted to a taxpayer-financed US$78 billion subsidy of the firms.

The findings added to the frustrations of lawmakers already wary of the $700 billion rescue plan, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Congress approved the plan last fall, but members of both parties criticized spending decisions by the Bush administration and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Financially ailing insurance giant American International Group, deemed by the Treasury Department to be too big to be allowed to fail, received $40 billion from the Treasury for assets valued at $14.8 billion, the oversight panel found.

The misgivings come as new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is preparing to place the Obama administration's imprint on the program with a sweeping new framework for helping banks, loosening credit and helping reduce foreclosures. Geithner plans to unveil the changes Monday.

In a bright spot for the rescue program, the same banks that received capital infusions from Treasury have already paid $271 million in dividends to the federal government and are expected to pay $1.5 billion more in dividends by the end of this month. Wells Fargo, which received a $25 billion infusion, has already announced it would pay Treasury $371 million in dividends this month.

The oversight panel examined 10 transactions, including eight made under a capital purchase program designed to put liquidity into the banks in hopes of easing credit. That money went to banks considered "healthy" financially but in need of capital to make loans.

Two other transactions went to AIG and to Citigroup Inc. under programs designed to help companies that were facing serious financial difficulties.

Overall, the panel and the analysts it retained to conduct the valuation study found that the Treasury used taxpayers' money to pay $62.5 billion more than the value of assets in the 10 transactions it examined. By extrapolating to the more than 300 institutions that received money, it concluded that the government in effect paid $78 billion more than the actual value of the asset at the time.

"Treasury chose to offer 'one size fits all' pricing in order to encourage all institutions to participate, and in so doing disregarded apparent differences in their financial condition," the report states. "A consequence is that Treasury effectively offered weaker participants greater subsidies than it offered to stronger participants."

Panel Chairwoman Elizabeth Warren, testifying to the Senate banking committee yesterday, said: "There may be good policy reasons for overpaying, but without a clearly delineated reason, we can't know that."

Reacting to the panel's conclusions, Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker said in a statement: "Treasury's efforts since the fall prevented a systemwide collapse, but more needs to be done to stabilize the financial sector, increase lending and protect taxpayer dollars."

He said the plan that Geithner will announce on Monday aims to free up credit, "while strengthening transparency and accountability measures so that taxpayers know where and how their money is being spent and whether it's achieving real results."

Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said the overpayment was sure to "raise eyebrows."

"I can understand some gap," he said. "No one is expecting perfection between the price you pay and what you think you're getting. But that's a pretty large disparity."

Another fund watchdog urged the Obama administration to be clearer about the true value of the nearly $300 billion the Treasury has infused into more than 300 institutions through purchases of assets such as preferred stock.

"Treasury needs, in the near term, to begin developing a more complete strategy on what to do with the very substantial portfolio that it now manages on behalf of the American people," said Neil Barofksy, the special inspector general for the rescue program.

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/583385

Umm, excuse me, but...

Clinton is the one who came up with the mandate that more people needed to own their own homes and made the banks give more loans to low income people, those who didn't even have jobs or a means to pay the mortgages. Look it up, I am too tired. But Clinton started the mess.

Bush wasn't the one who determined how much money to give the banks. I believe that it was the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, the SEC, and the Dem. congress. Bush just signed the bill.

And the Obama cronies in Congress are looking at the second bail out as their pot of pork to dole out thank yous to their supporters' pet projects that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the truth. The sad truth... but it would be nice to have a President change that for the "average" person. But since Bush just made them richer with his bailout...we are that much poorer.

It will always be that way. Think about it, if you are in debt and say do some kind of refinance to eliminate revolving debt, they loan you money at a higher interest rate because you have so much debt thus all you are doing is streaching out the time it takes to pay off the debt, you have lower payments but it costs you more in the end.

It's basically like going to a casino the deck is always going to be in the favor of the house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:slapface:

OK, look: It would have been better for him to keep going after the people that we KNEW were a threat to us, instead of chasing after the ones who MIGHT be. Don't YOU get THAT?

I do get what you're saying.

HOWEVER: The ones that "MIGHT be" had a much larger potential for hurting us and were hurting their own country as well.

Iraq HAD an unstable leader and nuclear bombs that COULD HAVE killed millions. Afghanistan HAS an un-stable leader and hijacked planes that CAN kill thousands. I'll take thousands of deaths over millions of deaths any ole day of the week.

For reference, million = 10^6, thousand = 10^3

Besides, Bin Laden is still out there, and we haven't gotten attacked since... so what is wrong?

Using your reasoning, we should just let Bin Laden be because, although we know he has the potential to hurt us, he technically isn't hurting us right now.

There are so many flaws in rationale I can hardly comprehend it.

Isn't the point to prevent things from happening rather than react to something after it's too late!? YES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do get what you're saying.

HOWEVER: The ones that "MIGHT be" had a much larger potential for hurting us and were hurting their own country as well.

Iraq HAD an unstable leader and nuclear bombs that COULD HAVE killed millions. Afghanistan HAS an un-stable leader and hijacked planes that CAN kill thousands. I'll take thousands of deaths over millions of deaths any ole day of the week.

For reference, million = 10^6, thousand = 10^3

Besides, Bin Laden is still out there, and we haven't gotten attacked since... so what is wrong?

Using your reasoning, we should Bin Laden be because, although we know he has the potential to hurt us, he technically isn't hurting us right now.

There are so many flaws in rationale I can hardly comprehend it.

Isn't the point to prevent things from happening rather than react to something after it's too late!? YES.

Ugh, never mind. You say you get it, but you don't. Whatever, it doesn't matter. It's done now, we've got a new president, hopefully he'll do a better job. I'm tired of arguing with you and I know it isn't going to go anywhere, so good night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...