Now We Know The Truth Behind the Bailout

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100127/D9DG9RG80.html

I watched the whole interrogation on tv....Geithnor whatever the real spelling is, lied to the Americans...and don't be surprised.

His connections as a 'Fed (in NY) was the the underlying reason for a bailout for AIG and Goldman Sachs that wasn't necessary.

See ya behind the Fed Pen! I knew it was a fraud.

Guess what? Old Quigley from IL wasn't present when they called on him to ask Geithner questions. Chicago connections...as usual.

UrRight wrote:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100127/D9DG9RG80.html

I watched the whole interrogation on tv....Geithnor whatever the real spelling is, lied to the Americans...and don't be surprised.

His connections as a 'Fed (in NY) was the the underlying reason for a bailout for AIG and Goldman Sachs that wasn't necessary.

What a load of crap. Absolutely nothing new came out in the hearing yesterday. I found the whole thing rather distasteful, personally. The House members acted like a bunch of idiots, apparently to look "tough" on the AIG bailout issue.

Geithner has answered all of these questions many times before, and quite honestly, I admire the guy for his patience and his service to our country.

The important message to take away from the hearing yesterday isn't that the economic disaster that we narrowly averted was a "fraud." It is that we can no longer allow the nation's financial institutions to have unfettered power to do whatever the hell they want, at our expense.

Nobody should object to reasonable banking regulations that will prevent such a disaster from ever happening again. And nobody should object to the fees being proposed which would allow us to at least recover every penny that was spent on the TARP bailout.

I've followed this whole saga from the beginning, and anybody who maintains that Tim Geithner is the villain in all of this is either an idiot or a liar.

The Financial Reform Bill that is currently being considered must be passed and strictly enforced as soon as possible. If Congress fails to act, the irresponsible corporate behavior that got us into this mess will happen again. We simply cannot allow that to happen, so I urge everyone to contact their Senators and Representatives and urge them to get behind the Administration's efforts to permanently fix the problems that caused the economic disaster that happened in 2008.

Scorpion wrote:

The important message to take away from the hearing yesterday isn't that the economic disaster that we narrowly averted was a "fraud." It is that we can no longer allow the nation's financial institutions to have unfettered power to do whatever the hell they want, at our expense.

Nobody should object to reasonable banking regulations that will prevent such a disaster from ever happening again. And nobody should object to the fees being proposed which would allow us to at least recover every penny that was spent on the TARP bailout.

I've followed this whole saga from the beginning, and anybody who maintains that Tim Geithner is the villain in all of this is either an idiot or a liar.

The Financial Reform Bill that is currently being considered must be passed and strictly enforced as soon as possible. If Congress fails to act, the irresponsible corporate behavior that got us into this mess will happen again. We simply cannot allow that to happen, so I urge everyone to contact their Senators and Representatives and urge them to get behind the Administration's efforts to permanently fix the problems that caused the economic disaster that happened in 2008.

Unfortunately I don't see that happening after last night's speech and the Republican reaction to it. They sat on their hands at every mention of it. As despicable as their filibustering tactics are,it seems to be working for them. Even if it isn't and we really won't know for sure until November,I don't see them stopping it. It's definitely the kind of legislation the Dems need to push,and push hard.

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

The important message to take away from the hearing yesterday isn't that the economic disaster that we narrowly averted was a "fraud." It is that we can no longer allow the nation's financial institutions to have unfettered power to do whatever the hell they want, at our expense.

Nobody should object to reasonable banking regulations that will prevent such a disaster from ever happening again. And nobody should object to the fees being proposed which would allow us to at least recover every penny that was spent on the TARP bailout.

I've followed this whole saga from the beginning, and anybody who maintains that Tim Geithner is the villain in all of this is either an idiot or a liar.

The Financial Reform Bill that is currently being considered must be passed and strictly enforced as soon as possible. If Congress fails to act, the irresponsible corporate behavior that got us into this mess will happen again. We simply cannot allow that to happen, so I urge everyone to contact their Senators and Representatives and urge them to get behind the Administration's efforts to permanently fix the problems that caused the economic disaster that happened in 2008.

Unfortunately I don't see that happening after last night's speech and the Republican reaction to it. They sat on their hands at every mention of it. As despicable as their filibustering tactics are,it seems to be working for them. Even if it isn't and we really won't know for sure until November,I don't see them stopping it. It's definitely the kind of legislation the Dems need to push,and push hard.

Yeah. Well IMHO, I think that we're going to see a much more aggressive Obama Administration in the coming months. Getting our money back from Wall Street is likely to be a very popular idea, and I expect Barack to push hard to make it happen. I don't think that it will be politically feasible for the Republicans to be against this idea if the President makes it a priority.

.

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well IMHO, I think that we're going to see a much more aggressive Obama Administration in the coming months. Getting our money back from Wall Street is likely to be a very popular idea, and I expect Barack to push hard to make it happen. I don't think that it will be politically feasible for the Republicans to be against this idea if the President makes it a priority.
.

Remember when they voted against Children's health care? That wasn't politically feasible either,IMO,but they did it anyway. The problem is that the Repubs are going to operate with the mistaken belief that Brown's election in Mass was a mandate for them. They're already trying to spin it that way. I believe it wasn't. Coakley was a horrible candidate and voters were angry at Washington in general,not necessarily at just the Dems.

The silver lining in that defeat is that the Repubs are now going to have to share some responsibility. No longer can they just sit back and say "You've got 60 Senators,pass it".

Brown won because of three things:

He never once referred to the word, Republican and in fact, said Kennedy's seat belongs to the people.

2. He made it clear he was going to vote the way HE wanted to vote, even if it meant voting along with the Repo or Demo's.

3. He came across as INTELLIGENT, INDEPENDENT, and not "groomed". He ran with no backing. He just comes across as maybe being the next POTUS.

As for as Geithner, they were vetting him to show the bailouts and how many phone calls were made prior to the bailouts that they were formally connected to Wallstreet. So too, the fact that he failed to pay his own taxes on time.

Personally, I don't care if you are a d or an r. I wish Obamba would stay put in the White House and work with them everyday and get the issues fixed. He travels way too much.

UrRight wrote:

Brown won because of three things:

He never once referred to the word, Republican and in fact, said Kennedy's seat belongs to the people.

True

Quote :

2. He made it clear he was going to vote the way HE wanted to vote, even if it meant voting along with the Repo or Demo's.

True,but whether he honors those promises remain to be seen

Quote :

3. He came across as INTELLIGENT, INDEPENDENT, and not "groomed". He ran with no backing. He just comes across as maybe being the next POTUS.

No chance at POTUS. The right wing would never stand for a moderate,if indeed he is one.

Bi-partisanship Republican style....

Senate Republicans Called For Commitment To PAYGO Before Voting Against It

Quote :

In his State of the Union address last night, President Obama urged the Senate to adopt pay-as-you-go rules (PAYGO), which essentially stipulate that all spending increases will be offset by either cuts elsewhere or tax increases. “When the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s,” Obama said.

Today, the Senate followed through, and considering all of the deficit fearmongering that has been going on in Congress, you’d think that it would have passed by a fairly wide margin. But no. Instead, the rules passed on a party line vote of 60-40.

Can anyone give me a logical reason as to why they would vote against this? Aren't they always posturing as "fiscal conservatives"?

I blame the Repos' as much as the BLUE dogs for fighting re-elections, and doing their job. I blame Obamba for not staying in the capitol to help guide them and promote the issues...they're all pointing fingers at each other.

We need a POTUS INSIDE, not traveling and talking.

One year later, darnit, walk the talk.

UrRight wrote:

I blame the Repos' as much as the BLUE dogs for fighting re-elections, and doing their job. I blame Obamba for not staying in the capitol to help guide them and promote the issues...they're all pointing fingers at each other.

We need a POTUS INSIDE, not traveling and talking.

One year later, darnit, walk the talk.

Do you understand the difference between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch? Sometimes I don't think you do.

Artie60438 wrote:

Bi-partisanship Republican style....

Senate Republicans Called For Commitment To PAYGO Before Voting Against It

Quote :

In his State of the Union address last night, President Obama urged the Senate to adopt pay-as-you-go rules (PAYGO), which essentially stipulate that all spending increases will be offset by either cuts elsewhere or tax increases. “When the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s,” Obama said.

Today, the Senate followed through, and considering all of the deficit fearmongering that has been going on in Congress, you’d think that it would have passed by a fairly wide margin. But no. Instead, the rules passed on a party line vote of 60-40.

Can anyone give me a logical reason as to why they would vote against this? Aren't they always posturing as "fiscal conservatives"?

Sure, it's because of the fact that Republicans are against anything that might involve a tax increase of any kind. That's how we got so far into debt when they controlled both Houses of Congress.

Is it logical to think that you can balance the budget without raising revenue? No, of course not. IMHO, that's a fundamental difference between the two parties. The Democrats realize that if you want to spend money and reduce the deficit, then you have to either raise money from another source. or cut spending elsewhere. The Republicans are only willing to decrease spending when it doesn't impact a Republican constituency.

It's a cowardly, intellectually dishonest way to approach "governing," but that's how the Republicans operate. So it is "logical" for them to oppose PAYGO, although "ideological" is a much more apt description of their behavior.

Scorpion wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Bi-partisanship Republican style....

Senate Republicans Called For Commitment To PAYGO Before Voting Against It

Can anyone give me a logical reason as to why they would vote against this? Aren't they always posturing as "fiscal conservatives"?

Sure, it's because of the fact that Republicans are against anything that might involve a tax increase of any kind. That's how we got so far into debt when they controlled both Houses of Congress.

Is it logical to think that you can balance the budget without raising revenue? No, of course not. IMHO, that's a fundamental difference between the two parties. The Democrats realize that if you want to spend money and reduce the deficit, then you have to either raise money from another source. or cut spending elsewhere. The Republicans are only willing to decrease spending when it doesn't impact a Republican constituency.

It's a cowardly, intellectually dishonest way to approach "governing," but that's how the Republicans operate. So it is "logical" for them to oppose PAYGO, although "ideological" is a much more apt description of their behavior.

I forgot about the tax increase angle. Great points. Thanks.