No, HGM, you're missing the point. If you're under 30, you don't know anything. That's why this world is such a utopia, what with the boomers in charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Printable View
No, HGM, you're missing the point. If you're under 30, you don't know anything. That's why this world is such a utopia, what with the boomers in charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
http://images.dailydawdle.com/thats-a-good-question.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
@Kobie
My generation of conservatives, now known as the Tea Party, has realized and foreseen the problem for years. It is only now that even the liberal hippies of the 60's have awaken to the madness of uncontrolled Washington spending. But is it too late ... that is the unknown.
@HoustonGM
The bailouts were not the vision of the Tea Party ... only GM Union workers were saved. GM filed bankruptcy and millions, if not billions were lost by stock and bond holders (yes some if not all of our life savings were wiped out, who saved our lives?). The banks were saved by the Democrat control DC and Pres Obama (complete agenda control of the 3 branches in Washington for 2 years.) The Banks should have failed as should have GM and Chrysler. The dismal management should have had to pay the price for their incorrect choices and they should have all been shut down. But the Dems (ie government) stepped in and picked the winners and losers. But this spending fiasco isn't over yet, I can still foresee the banks may yet fail and maybe take the government with it.
Like I have said before ..cash is king at this time (debt is a big liability).
We can argue as who is to blame ... but fixing it is all that matters now. Obama wishes to retry what has failed for the last 2-1\2 years. There is a fork in the road ahead and the Tea party leg is the new direction to take.
It was Bush that bailed out the banks, not Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
/fact checking
"Congressional officials said they expected a request for legal authority to buy up the bad loans, at a cost in excess of $500 billion to the government. Democrats were discussing whether to try to attach middle class assistance to the legislation, despite a request from Bush to avoid adding controversial items that could delay action. An expansion of jobless benefits was one possibility."
Let's get it right ragecage the Democrats laid out the bill for Bush to sign or veto. So, your saying now you agree with the Tea Party and me, he should have vetoed the bill?
TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) was signed into law by President George W. Bush on Oct. 3, 2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouble...Relief_Program
You really don't have any clue what you're talking about, do you?
EDIT: Bah, someone beat me to it.
@ Kobie
You son are the one lost here.
TARP 2008:
Congress authorized the Treasury Department to use up to $700 billion to stabilize financial markets through the program -- a step that inspired widespread public outrage, helping to fuel what became the Tea Party Movement, and, in the mind of most economists, one that played a crucial role in pulling the global economy back from the brink.
Bush has nothing to control with this dude expect sign what the Dems laid on his desk.
What I posted first was regarding the 2009 stimulus .. Bush signed it.
Either one ... are you now agreeing with the Tea Party and ME ... that Bush should not have signed either one of these??
YOU claimed Obama was the one who bailed out the banks, which is what TARP was. You were factually wrong. Again. This is getting old, Pete.
I figure you won't answer ... Yes or No
LOL .. as Sarah Palin often says ... GOTCHA
You edited the question in after. Nice try at a "gotcha," but you fail. Do I need to start quoting any of your posts I reply to, just to prevent you from attempting your usual dishonesty?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
I was not a big fan of TARP; the stimulus was necessary.
I thought it should have been vetoed from the onset. I believe if you let a business fail, that another business that knows how to operate will come in and do a better job. Government has no business giving businesses money and if they do, they better give money to every business struggling and quit picking winners and losers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I remember that if you take the bailout and stimulus money and give an equal portion to every citizen, that would be about $20,000. I think that would have worked a hell of a lot better than what they did do.
Pete has to be a troll, right? I mean either that or he's suffering from full on dementia. Seriously.
This only furthers that. Oy vey...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
He's either an intentional troll, or he's mindblowingly stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
I thought that he was a troll for sure at first. But he's been doing this for years. Seems like a lot of effort to put into one "character".Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobie