Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Recommendations

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

It kept those responsible for decimating the economy from facing consequences. Live and Learn Mar 2016 #1
No it didn't. Recursion Mar 2016 #3
Financial repercussions. Businesses that should have been allowed to fail. Live and Learn Mar 2016 #9
17 last I saw, and literally hundreds of companies failed Recursion Mar 2016 #11
Pretty much this. We held the victims of the 2008 meltdown responsible, while letting the perps el_bryanto Mar 2016 #4
It's the outrage today that makes me laugh. Where was the outrage back then? livetohike Mar 2016 #2
There was plenty of outrage even on DU about it then. Live and Learn Mar 2016 #8
I don't need a site search. I've been here since 2004. livetohike Mar 2016 #15
Than you know that plenty of DUers were outraged by it, right? Why did you imply otherwise? nt el_bryanto Mar 2016 #17
WTF are you talking about? ljm2002 Mar 2016 #44
I agree with that.. DCBob Mar 2016 #5
Agreed...And yet you're for Sanders BeyondGeography Mar 2016 #6
Only tactically. Recursion Mar 2016 #10
I understand BeyondGeography Mar 2016 #13
Yeah,I don't get the outrage about the bailout, sufrommich Mar 2016 #7
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2016 #12
That's stale information... once the books were closed in 2014 TARP ended with $15.3 billion profit. DCBob Mar 2016 #16
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2016 #18
But TARP overall was a profit. DCBob Mar 2016 #19
Good point: the auto portion took a loss, but it was well worth it Recursion Mar 2016 #20
And that is the one aspect.. NCTraveler Mar 2016 #26
And how much were their overseas profits as we were "bailing them out"? kentuck Mar 2016 #14
Are you saying the US Gevernment didn't make enough money from it? Recursion Mar 2016 #21
You don't seem open to anything BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #36
No. I'm saying they separated their overseas profits from US profits... kentuck Mar 2016 #37
Bernie was for it, but he wanted conditions placed on it. JRLeft Mar 2016 #22
Agreed: I think Clinton's attack on Sanders here is rather simplistic Recursion Mar 2016 #24
She will Michigan by 30-40 points. JRLeft Mar 2016 #25
I disagree Recursion Mar 2016 #27
Have you seen the latest polls he's getting trounced in Michigan. JRLeft Mar 2016 #28
And if so he needs to drop out Recursion Mar 2016 #29
His goal is to force her to progressive, but she's a true corporacrat. JRLeft Mar 2016 #30
A vanity candidate?? choie Mar 2016 #32
If his message can't carry MI it's kind of absurd to keep going. (nt) Recursion Mar 2016 #34
You mean like Clinton did in 2008? choie Mar 2016 #35
Yeah, I criticized her pretty strongly back then for that (nt) Recursion Mar 2016 #45
K&R mcar Mar 2016 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #31
No, the appropriate benchmark would be the risk free rate plus a significant premium BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #38
This message was self-deleted by its author JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #39
This message was self-deleted by its author BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #40
I am talking about what rate you charge the companies BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #41
Yeah I see what you're saying. JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #42
It rescued the banks but didn't change any of the underlying structure to prevent future crises Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #33
Wow, where to start... ljm2002 Mar 2016 #43
Exactly, Thank You. Agony Mar 2016 #46
Politically speaking: I caused the start of the tea bagger movement. sadoldgirl Mar 2016 #47
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Since this is coming back...»Reply #31