Don't know the answer to that question. How much? While you are looking that up, look up how much it would have cost the fed govt directly and indirectly if the banking system had been allowed to fail.

 

Bottom line: the Tarp money loaned to the banks has been repaid. With more banks still expected to repay, the fed govt will make a profit on the Tarp money loaned to banks. Setting aside the fact that the Tarp money saved the banking industry and thus saved the federal govt big money, the fed govt will actually make a profit on the Tarp loans. Anyone that wants to criticize the fed govt for lending the Tarp money to bail out the banks and save the banking industry isn't a very shrewd business person.

 

If GM someday truly repays the Tarp money it received and the fed govt makes a profit from its investment, not only will 1000s of job been saved, it will likewise have been a good investment. I'm not as optimistic in GM's chances of doing it, but I'm hoping.

 

I think you have me mistaken, I reluctantly supported the bank bailout and support it more earnestly now.

Edited October 11, 201114 yr by Habib

Looks like the progressive New York political party Working Families has run an ad on Craigslist, apparently the ad promises a salary for joining the OccupyWallStreet protests.

 

 

$350-$650 A Week Depending On Responsibility & Length Of Time On Staff

Sounds like "Grass Roots" to me....

It's mostly a result of the class warfare Obama has been supporting.. He is a divider. Not the great uniter he promised to be.

.

It's mostly a result of the class warfare Obama has been supporting.. He is a divider. Not the great uniter he promised to be.

.

TOTALLY agree! :thumb:

I have no dispute that TARP will eventually be repaid. How much did the Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve of New York, and the FDIC spend on banks or guarantee for banks during the crisis?

 

You do know that despite the name, the Federal Reserve is not a government entity at all. It is just a (the) central bank in the U.S. "The Fed" is just all the consolidated old money of the US.

I think you have me mistaken, I reluctantly supported the bank bailout and support it more earnestly now.

 

Glad to know that. Hopefully other rational people will come around to realizing that the bailout of the banking system was absolutely essential. Had a bunch of banks start failing, we'd have had a really, really big economic crisis.

 

With third quarter corporate earnings coming/soon to be coming out, I wonder how many of the OWS protesters have their retirement savings invested in the stock market? Since they appear in general to be relatively young and not close to retirement, perhaps they don't care about the stock market. But a whole lot of folks near retirement or retired that depend on high stock prices and good dividends to be able to afford retirement, probably look at corporate profits and "corporate greed" a tad bit differently than younger folks do. Does it bother me to see CEOs getting paid exorbitant salaries and benefits? Yes it does at times. I'll admit it. Heck, T. Boone Pickens, a devoted capitalist, has been critical of high CEO compensation for some time. I wish the big corporate CEOs and the compensation committees would be more responsible and sensitive in these economic times. Then again, there are probably folks that think I make too much money also, so perhaps who I am to say the corporate CEOs are getting paid too much?

 

The free market and capitalism, in spite of its flaws, much like democracy is the best form of government in spite of its flaws, is still the best economic system for the US. When a corporate CEO's comp gets so excessive that I think it hurts me as a stockholder, I sell the stock and invest elsewhere. If I don't have stock in a company paying excessive comp to its CEO, I really don't care. When we start accepting the principle that the govt should have the right to take (in the form of even greater taxes) what it thinks is excessive compensation or to otherwise attempt to manipulate, control or regulate compensation of private businesses, we move further and further away from the free market.

 

This whole 99% stuff smells a bit like socialism to me. I heard one of the leaders of the Cincinnati movement on the radio and she was flat out scary in her discussion of how it's wrong that the 1% is so much better off than the 99%. I thought I was listening to some far left revolutionary figure from South America. I hope she doesn't represent the majority involved in the "occupation". If so, yikes!

It's mostly a result of the class warfare Obama has been supporting.. He is a divider. Not the great uniter he promised to be.

.

 

Unfortunately, I probably have to agree with you on that point. While I voted for Sen. McCain, I held hope that President Obama would be a unifying influence in this country. So far, on my scorecard, he has probably done more divisive than unifying things. He'll be treading on very dangerous ground (for our country's future) if he turns this election into class warfare. It might get him re-elected, but I think he'll do a lot of long term damage to our country in the process. I hope and pray he's more responsible than that.

Glad to know that. Hopefully other rational people will come around to realizing that the bailout of the banking system was absolutely essential. Had a bunch of banks start failing, we'd have had a really, really big economic crisis.

 

With third quarter corporate earnings coming/soon to be coming out, I wonder how many of the OWS protesters have their retirement savings invested in the stock market? Since they appear in general to be relatively young and not close to retirement, perhaps they don't care about the stock market. But a whole lot of folks near retirement or retired that depend on high stock prices and good dividends to be able to afford retirement, probably look at corporate profits and "corporate greed" a tad bit differently than younger folks do. Does it bother me to see CEOs getting paid exorbitant salaries and benefits? Yes it does at times. I'll admit it. Heck, T. Boone Pickens, a devoted capitalist, has been critical of high CEO compensation for some time. I wish the big corporate CEOs and the compensation committees would be more responsible and sensitive in these economic times. Then again, there are probably folks that think I make too much money also, so perhaps who I am to say the corporate CEOs are getting paid too much?

 

The free market and capitalism, in spite of its flaws, much like democracy is the best form of government in spite of its flaws, is still the best economic system for the US. When a corporate CEO's comp gets so excessive that I think it hurts me as a stockholder, I sell the stock and invest elsewhere. If I don't have stock in a company paying excessive comp to its CEO, I really don't care. When we start accepting the principle that the govt should have the right to take (in the form of even greater taxes) what it thinks is excessive compensation or to otherwise attempt to manipulate, control or regulate compensation of private businesses, we move further and further away from the free market.

 

This whole 99% stuff smells a bit like socialism to me. I heard one of the leaders of the Cincinnati movement on the radio and she was flat out scary in her discussion of how it's wrong that the 1% is so much better off than the 99%. I thought I was listening to some far left revolutionary figure from South America. I hope she doesn't represent the majority involved in the "occupation". If so, yikes!

I was trying to research more about the OWS the other day and googled OWS demands. Found a list one of them posted on occupywallstreet.org (I believe). It was like 13-14 demands. Like you I hope it wasn't representative of most of the crowd, if so wow. The $20 min wage and living wage for all no matter employment status were interesting.

I am a firm believer that the widening gap between the haves and have nots is worthy of debate and protest.

 

I'm not sure if this particular protest is effective though.

I am a firm believer that the widening gap between the haves and have nots is worthy of debate and protest.

 

I'm not sure if this particular protest is effective though.

I only know one thing:

 

 

I'm for whatever issue she wants to protest.

Unfortunately, I probably have to agree with you on that point. While I voted for Sen. McCain, I held hope that President Obama would be a unifying influence in this country. So far, on my scorecard, he has probably done more divisive than unifying things. He'll be treading on very dangerous ground (for our country's future) if he turns this election into class warfare. It might get him re-elected, but I think he'll do a lot of long term damage to our country in the process. I hope and pray he's more responsible than that.

 

You'd better be hoping and praying that not only Obama, but your senators and congressmen also more responsible. There has been 0 cooperation from either side from day 1. You can put it all on Obama if you want, but the truth is, cooperation is not capitulation.

Honestly, I'm not an Obama fan. But, it seems to me he's been much more toward the middle than most expected, including both supporters and detractors. But, it doesn't matter what he does when the two opposing sides won't compromise and work together. I don't think he's divided this country any more than it was already divided. I would place that responsibility more on numerous other politicians and opposing liberal and conservative media machines that keep driving that wedge.

 

The biggest criticism I have of Obama, at least from my perspective, is the lack of leadership. So, while I don't lay blame at his feet for being a divider, I don't think he has provided the type of leadership we need to bring people together.

^This has happened to me twice now. I promise you when I type my post and look at it, the word "when" is not doubled up, yet when I submit it it, it shows up as if I typed it twice in succession. That happened to me yesterday on another post. :idunno:

You'd better be hoping and praying that not only Obama, but your senators and congressmen also more responsible. There has been 0 cooperation from either side from day 1. You can put it all on Obama if you want, but the truth is, cooperation is not capitulation.

 

No doubt that you are correct about Congress also being responsible and that I hope and pray they are more responsible. I do disagree however that there has been no cooperation from day 1 however. The problem is not just who is in the WH, again it lies partially with Congress. But perhaps more now than in a long time, we need a leader in the WH who can pull together enough members of Congress to get past the gridlock. Perhaps no President can do that given the political climate; but what I've seen so far, I'm sure that President Obama hasn't. His constant shots at business might be great re-election talk, but it doesn't help bring Republicans back to the middle. The frequent shots he took at former President Bush, while great for lathering up the Dems, didn't help bring a spirit of cooperation from the Republicans. I'll continue to state and believe that President Obama's decision to push health care reform without llittle or any Republican support for the bill and with a majority of American opposed to the reform set the stage perfectly for more Tea Party believers to get elected in the 2010 elections and pushed moderate Republicans in Congress to the right. Battle lines were drawn and the moderates of both parties retreated to the trenches. It was a huge strategic plunder in my opinion regardless of whether it was the "right" thing to do or not. President Obama won the battle but may have lost the war of gaining cooperation from the Rs in Congress. And I'll also disagree that sometimes cooperation is not capitulation. I've been involved in numerous law firm votes where an issue had enough votes to pass, but was withdrawn because the large minority were so adamantly opposed to the issue. Rather than tearing the firm apart, the issue was withdrawn until the majority could convince most of the minority to support the issue or it was permanently placed on the back burner if that couldn't be accomplished. Sometimes capitulating is the best course of action in the long run.

No doubt that you are correct about Congress also being responsible and that I hope and pray they are more responsible. I do disagree however that there has been no cooperation from day 1 however. The problem is not just who is in the WH, again it lies partially with Congress. But perhaps more now than in a long time, we need a leader in the WH who can pull together enough members of Congress to get past the gridlock. Perhaps no President can do that given the political climate; but what I've seen so far, I'm sure that President Obama hasn't. His constant shots at business might be great re-election talk, but it doesn't help bring Republicans back to the middle. The frequent shots he took at former President Bush, while great for lathering up the Dems, didn't help bring a spirit of cooperation from the Republicans. I'll continue to state and believe that President Obama's decision to push health care reform without llittle or any Republican support for the bill and with a majority of American opposed to the reform set the stage perfectly for more Tea Party believers to get elected in the 2010 elections and pushed moderate Republicans in Congress to the right. Battle lines were drawn and the moderates of both parties retreated to the trenches. It was a huge strategic plunder in my opinion regardless of whether it was the "right" thing to do or not. President Obama won the battle but may have lost the war of gaining cooperation from the Rs in Congress. And I'll also disagree that sometimes cooperation is not capitulation. I've been involved in numerous law firm votes where an issue had enough votes to pass, but was withdrawn because the large minority were so adamantly opposed to the issue. Rather than tearing the firm apart, the issue was withdrawn until the majority could convince most of the minority to support the issue or it was permanently placed on the back burner if that couldn't be accomplished. Sometimes capitulating is the best course of action in the long run.

 

I'm sorry...I'd love to delve deeper into this, but work prevails. I will say to the bolded: Mitch McConnell set the tone and the path for the Republican if not on day one, then within the first week.