General Discussion

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)

140. I think I agree with all 3 of your points here, strange as that may sound. Well, I might have a few

Thu May 24, 2012, 03:37 AM

May 2012

petty cavils on #3, especially with regard to Henry Paulson who still to this day gives me the creeps. The AIG bailout ended up sending a lot of pass-through funds to Goldman Sachs (b/c of payouts on credit default swaps) and I've felt that needs to be investigated thoroughly.

As to point #1, I would point out that Obama's administration in March 2009 launched its own version of TARP (called the Public-Private Investment Program) that actually used funds appropriated for TARP. But you're absolutely correct that TARP was signed into law by Bush after his administration lobbied Congress heavily for it.

I think my OP question (or maybe the spirit behind the words anyway) was pointed toward your point #2, that if bankers (and their share- and bondholders) were to be bailed out, that other segments were as deserving or more deserving of a bailout also, questions of 'moral hazard' be damned.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

182 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A question for Obama and\or his supporters here: [View all] coalition_unwilling May 2012 OP

yes. DCBob May 2012 #1

So, maybe the obvious next question is, is it appropriate coalition_unwilling May 2012 #3

yes, given.. DCBob May 2012 #7

We would probably be better off if this wretched system collapsed. white_wolf May 2012 #116

Any evidence to support that assertion? tabasco May 2012 #181

What's the alternative? randome May 2012 #17

You act this this is something new Freddie Stubbs May 2012 #47

Hunh? Possibly garbled syntax in your response. But I'm in the process coalition_unwilling May 2012 #65

You asked a H2O Man May 2012 #89

Double amen, Mr. H2O Man sad sally May 2012 #130

Another natural follow-up question is, Marr May 2012 #106

The FDIC doesn't have enough to bail out a big bank. dkf May 2012 #2

Not sure what the FDIC has to do with the question I raised, since the FDIC coalition_unwilling May 2012 #5

Not so much quaker bill May 2012 #15

Not if the account is FDIC-insured and less than $250,000. Or coalition_unwilling May 2012 #68

The FDIC=bank bailouts with your money Red Knight May 2012 #144

Money is money quaker bill May 2012 #145

If the FDIC did not have enough funds to rescue the banks under its charter, then coalition_unwilling May 2012 #146

Nice concepts, but not actually true quaker bill May 2012 #172

Actually, Congress appropriated funds for TARP, somthing in the coalition_unwilling May 2012 #178

What irritates me about your question is that it's highly divisive. vaberella May 2012 #4

Wow, I must have touched a nerve without really intending to. I meant that coalition_unwilling May 2012 #6

Simple Choice louis c May 2012 #22

Your position is basically ignorant, I'm afraid Spider Jerusalem May 2012 #48

Don't intend to get into a name-calling tit-for-tat here, but coalition_unwilling May 2012 #64

That's basically assuming something that wasn't, in the event, tested. Spider Jerusalem May 2012 #85

Actually, I can wrap my head around your position (I think). You're coalition_unwilling May 2012 #88

The big "bailout" was done under the Bush* Administration Bandit May 2012 #135

We need to be able to discuss problem even in an election year Marrah_G May 2012 #34

Thank you for the compliment. After I posted the thread in the coalition_unwilling May 2012 #70

"talking" online is never easy Marrah_G May 2012 #71

Thank God for the 'sarcasm' emoticon :) - n/t coalition_unwilling May 2012 #73

I'll bookmark this and get back to you as I was writing a book to answer here, LOL. freshwest May 2012 #8

"A question for Obama supporters here" grantcart May 2012 #9

To be fair Horse with no Name May 2012 #10

To be even fairer. great white snark May 2012 #11

Oh yes Horse with no Name May 2012 #12

You are correct, horse. eom truth2power May 2012 #175

lol cherokeeprogressive May 2012 #24

The problem I have with castigating people in the latter category Skidmore May 2012 #14

The problem I have with that line Marr May 2012 #108

He will get my vote Marrah_G May 2012 #37

Nonresponsive treestar May 2012 #173

what a steaming load of bullshit. dionysus May 2012 #179

Thank you lunatica May 2012 #18

+1 n/t FSogol May 2012 #32

+1 JoePhilly May 2012 #41

Thanks grantcart goclark May 2012 #56

It amazes me how many people on DU are to the Right of Bush on this issue. ieoeja May 2012 #63

Marxist Historical Materialism. Let the world burn. joshcryer May 2012 #149

Wow, just wow. You're creating a strawman Marx and a strawman coalition_unwilling May 2012 #155

No I'm not. I'm attributing that to the authoriarian left. joshcryer May 2012 #157

Not once did Marx advocate to "let the world burn." Marx was coalition_unwilling May 2012 #163

TARP was roughly $50 billion (losses) all said and told. joshcryer May 2012 #165

The IMF estimates that the global banking crisis cost in the neighborhood coalition_unwilling May 2012 #167

Those "toxic assets" were overvalued. joshcryer May 2012 #168

I plan to vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils in November. But coalition_unwilling May 2012 #72

You won't get a good answer because you're dealing with people who fundamentally do not understand.. girl gone mad May 2012 #147

Thanks. I know that these are difficult issues to comprehend for all of us sometimes. I do think coalition_unwilling May 2012 #150

Nationalizing everything is unconstitutional without just compensation. joshcryer May 2012 #151

I'm not talking about 'nationalizing everything' (at least in the context of coalition_unwilling May 2012 #152

Do you have a link to Stiglitz's article? joshcryer May 2012 #156

Sorry, it's not an article, it's a great book called "Freefall". I just coalition_unwilling May 2012 #161

Thanks, looking at it. joshcryer May 2012 #162

I think you have put your hands on a dark truth, that some coalition_unwilling May 2012 #164

I found the quote: joshcryer May 2012 #169

The FDIC nationalizes banks on a regular basis. girl gone mad May 2012 #158

The losses would've been enormous. joshcryer May 2012 #160

Stiglitz supported pre-privatization at the time. girl gone mad May 2012 #154

Thanks to Grantcart Sheepshank May 2012 #74

The WAMU runs.. girl gone mad May 2012 #153

Well, actually, I was asking why the banking segment of society received preferential coalition_unwilling May 2012 #159

lol well the shareholders of WAMU don't agree and in court arguing exactly the opposite. grantcart May 2012 #166

The bailout was bipartisan. It was begun under Bush and continued under Obama. The HiPointDem May 2012 #13

You forget, perhaps conveniently, that Obama fought to help the American people too lunatica May 2012 #16

Well said! nt One of the 99 May 2012 #33

Thoughtfully put. Robb May 2012 #35

+1 uponit7771 May 2012 #40

+1 JoePhilly May 2012 #44

Exactly GObamaGO May 2012 #62

I grant you that Obama has faced an obstructionist Congress the coalition_unwilling May 2012 #76

If I'm not mistaken..... kurtzapril4 May 2012 #136

Just like they threatened to not raise the debt ceiling right? lunatica May 2012 #143

Shareholders/Bondholders = Depositors... KharmaTrain May 2012 #19

+1 JoePhilly May 2012 #45

Exactly, banks contain collection of all our funds treestar May 2012 #69

The average "Joes and Janes" you reference were already coalition_unwilling May 2012 #78

FDIC Only Covered Up To $250,000 KharmaTrain May 2012 #99

Actually, it's those who own shares of stock in banks who are the 'owners' of the banks, not coalition_unwilling May 2012 #105

This isn't about Obama, this is about the economy itself MrScorpio May 2012 #20

Foolish, divisive question. The banks are the repository of society's wealth.... Scuba May 2012 #21

Wow, why don't you alert on the thread if you're coalition_unwilling May 2012 #79

I may be confused but why ask Obama Supporters? fredamae May 2012 #23

Well, the policy of bank bailouts begun under Bush continued coalition_unwilling May 2012 #80

I responded to this on a separate post Sheepshank May 2012 #113

You know, upon reflection, I think you are 99% correct here and I was 99% incorrect. Specifically, coalition_unwilling May 2012 #139

Yeah, Fuck Detroit, don't bail out the autoworkers! boppers May 2012 #25

Nobody bailed out "the autoworkers"; the UAW contract was broken, and "dual tier" wages were Romulox May 2012 #28

+1 Octafish May 2012 #90

Two tiers was better than no tiers. boppers May 2012 #137

Is is a bailout if they paid it back? n/t B2G May 2012 #26

Banks generally charge a premium ("interest") for the use of money. Paying back the principle Romulox May 2012 #29

Principle was paid back with interest, don't see this as a bail out uponit7771 May 2012 #42

Not *Market rate* interest. That was the entire point in having the gov't intervene; Romulox May 2012 #59

A question for you. Ikonoklast May 2012 #27

SENATOR Obama was a huge supporter of the bankster bailouts. Do you think people don't remember? Romulox May 2012 #30

can you provide the actual Bill Number? n/t fredamae May 2012 #46

I don't have the bill number but I remember that McCain wanted to suspend the Presidential Campaign LynneSin May 2012 #51

What we didn't know then...... fredamae May 2012 #54

Then VS Now fredamae May 2012 #57

Without too much research, my recollection Sheepshank May 2012 #91

This is the bill. Obama didn't just *vote* for it--he lobbied his fellow Senators. Romulox May 2012 #58

I don't know that he lobbied fredamae May 2012 #66

Did he sign TARP into law as president? Ikonoklast May 2012 #122

The answer is that it would've been ARMAGEDDON if James Dimon hadn't lived to lose another $3 Bil Romulox May 2012 #31

Since you refer to 'Obama or his supporters' I take it you're not one? WI_DEM May 2012 #36

Not everyone here is an Obama supporter Marrah_G May 2012 #39

Wha? He's not far to the right on any issues. MAYBE a centrist on some but far to the right?? FarLeftFist May 2012 #52

You're certainly not "far left" if you don't understand Marrah's response. TBF May 2012 #61

I don't think you understand Marrah's response at all. And certainly don't tell me what I am. FarLeftFist May 2012 #75

Which is saying a lot about my lifetime, TBF May 2012 #82

Taxing the rich? Is that why he let the Bush Tax Cuts expire? Marr May 2012 #109

Except the GOP majority held tax cuts for the middle class hostage as well. FarLeftFist May 2012 #124

So you categorize Bush's tax policy as "moderate"? Marr May 2012 #133

On issues of national security he is very right wing. white_wolf May 2012 #118

He ended torture and ended the Iraq War. Again, a CENTRIST. FarLeftFist May 2012 #125

They can say the Iraq War is over all they want, but... white_wolf May 2012 #129

Does that mean the US is still fighting WW 2 considering where you have troops? n/t Bodhi BloodWave May 2012 #176

I will vote for 0bama as I've said repeatedly ad nauseum, because coalition_unwilling May 2012 #83

Bush signed TARP and bailed out the banks. The states got stimulus. FarLeftFist May 2012 #38

*****OBAMA DID NOT DO BAIL OUT IT WAS BUSH, OBAMA DID STIUMULUS******* uponit7771 May 2012 #43

Bailout was bipartisan. The mess was created by a Republican Admin with Republican policies. MatthewStLouis May 2012 #49

Just so everyone is clear - Obama was a US Senator when the bank bail-outs happened LynneSin May 2012 #50

Post removed Post removed May 2012 #53

It seems to me the auto-bail-out JNelson6563 May 2012 #55

+1 hear, hear, Julie!! nofurylike May 2012 #141

Agree - hell of a mess GWB got us into TBF May 2012 #60

OMG, if McCrazy had been elected in 2008 or the Romuloid in coalition_unwilling May 2012 #84

Banks keep the money, and if they fail treestar May 2012 #67

Good points. We did have a mechanism already in place (the FDIC) that coalition_unwilling May 2012 #86

The FDIC was clearly not sufficient Spider Jerusalem May 2012 #110

Understood, but if the problem was that the FDIC was underfunded, there coalition_unwilling May 2012 #182

I agree about the ordinary Joe being foreclosed upon treestar May 2012 #180

This is the way it always is. Nothing to do with Obama. raouldukelives May 2012 #77

As it turns out...... Sheepshank May 2012 #81

Well, a jury of my peers voted 1-5 to leave it standing (see below), so coalition_unwilling May 2012 #92

I didn't call for any sanction of your op... Sheepshank May 2012 #107

OP was alerted. Here are the results stevenleser May 2012 #87

Thank you for posting. With regard to Juror #5, I guess I should coalition_unwilling May 2012 #93

I am Juror #5. I particularly object to your blaming Obama for TARP, a Bush law and then stevenleser May 2012 #95

Hmm, maybe I have been mis-construing Stiglitz' book, or maybe coalition_unwilling May 2012 #96

A couple of points stevenleser May 2012 #102

This *precisely* the kind of conversation you voted to cut off. Should your post be alerted? Romulox May 2012 #115

No, it isnt. I voted to cut off a post that blames Obama for something Bush did. Nice try though. stevenleser May 2012 #117

I think your technique of denying the obvious leaves no room for an actual exchange. Romulox May 2012 #119

I think it is you who refuses to acknowledge that TARP was passed under Bush and therefore stevenleser May 2012 #123

I think I agree with all 3 of your points here, strange as that may sound. Well, I might have a few coalition_unwilling May 2012 #140

Senator Obama voted for TARP, and lobbied his fellow Senators for its passage. You're misinformed. Romulox May 2012 #97

I'm not misinformed. I know he was not President when it passed. nt stevenleser May 2012 #98

You spoke of "blaming Obama for TARP"--he is responsible for his vote as Senator, as well as Romulox May 2012 #101

See my #102 stevenleser May 2012 #103

Wherein you *finally* explain why you voted to hide a truthful post? I can hardly wait. nt Romulox May 2012 #112

The TARP funds were spent under his watch b/c it was signed into law by Bush. FarLeftFist May 2012 #104

Senator Obama helped pass it with his vote. I'm not doing the School House Rock thing for you. nt Romulox May 2012 #111

Yup. Just like every other sane person. Are you looking for a mentally unstable president? See: Bush FarLeftFist May 2012 #126

Sad that it was H2O Man May 2012 #94

Fair question, but didn't Bush bail out the banks? Obama and Congress bailed out the auto industry rustydog May 2012 #100

You are asking the wrong president. W bailed out the banksters. jwirr May 2012 #114

TARP occured under Bush Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2012 #120

Actually, I had not forgotten that TARP was passed during the coalition_unwilling May 2012 #128

I see you got your answer just1voice May 2012 #121

Because Bush bailed them out - not Obama - so ask the Bush supporters here jpak May 2012 #127

According to Joseph Stiglitz, in March 2009, Obama's administration launched coalition_unwilling May 2012 #132

What horseshit - try again jpak May 2012 #170

jpak vs. Nobel Economics Laureate Joseph Stiglitz = gnat vs. elephant. But coalition_unwilling May 2012 #171

I think that at the time, it was a matter of having no choice but to bail out the Super Banks GarroHorus May 2012 #131

I assume it was done largely to try and prevent a full 1929 style crash. cstanleytech May 2012 #134

OMG, no matter what one may think of Obama's stance vis-a-vis coalition_unwilling May 2012 #138

"a Romney presidency would simply be an unmitigated disaster for this country and the globe." cstanleytech May 2012 #142

This message was self-deleted by its author joshcryer May 2012 #148

Because when the Titanic is sinking... kentuck May 2012 #174

Wow, that is an apt metaphor. Or maybe something coalition_unwilling May 2012 #177