Obama and the Dems have given the wealthy elite every thing they wanted, and given the poor

[edhopper]

and middle class close to nothing. Health Care reform is perhaps biggest thing that could help the majority of Americans, if it is even passed, it has been so watered down and made anemic (what public option? what drug cost controls?) that it is all window dressing.
My hope is not alive.

[babylonsister]

1. What have the Dems given the wealthy elite? nt

[MNDemNY]

3. No repeal of * tax cuts, continuation of war funding, trillions to prop up banks.........

[edhopper]

4. Close to 17 trillion dollars

in loans, grants and straight give aways to the banks and financials, with absolutely no restriction on their activity. Including a continuation of the very things that brought on the financial crisis.
Wall Street roars while America stays poor.

[HamdenRice]

11. Totally. Completely. False.

It was not $17 trillion, or any other of the many crazy numbers that have been debunked.

Almost every dime that was "given" to the banks was in the form of a loan that had to be paid back, or a guarantee, almost none of which have had to be used.

Some of the biggest items on the theoretical total bailout liabilities (not costs) were extended guarantees to money market funds and checking accounts -- it to consumers, not to banks. Probably the second biggest item was reciprocal currency arrangements with other government central banks -- Bank of England, European Central Bank and Japanese Central Bank -- which were either money makers or revenue neutral.

Every single bailout item came with restrictions -- the most important being the requirement to pay the funds back. That's a pretty big restriction.

As for regulating Wall St., that will take years if not months of hearings to figure out what went wrong in the first place and how to fix it.

[edhopper]

15. First,

the IG says it could be $23 billion.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html

Second;
We already know what happened. Just read Taleb or Roubini or Shiller or Krugman or Stiglitz or Baker.......
Repeal of Glass/Stegal, allowing the housing bubble to grow to massive proportions, allowing companies to triple their leverage on assets and so on.

[HamdenRice]

17. Even the article you cited debunks your claim

No one, not even the IG thinks that the bailout can actually cost $23 trillion or $17 trillion. Your own article says it was $2 trillion, and that includes the $750 billion stimulus, which went (or will go) mostly to hiring people by state governments and infrastructure projects.

That huge number would require things that basically can't happen. Not only would every guaranteed mortgage would have to default, but the underlying real estate would have to have zero value. Every bank account and checking account and money market account would have to be wiped out to zero. Every central bank (the European Central Bank, Bank of Japan, Bank of England, etc.) would have to default on currency swaps AND the value of the pound, euro and yen would have to fall to zero. Every piece of commercial paper issued by every corporation in the US would have to be worthless. Even the Treasury's own treasury bills (purchased by the Fed from banks) would have to default.

It's a nonsense number and the guy who gave it told the NY Times the next day it was a bullshit number.

[MNDemNY]

2. No, NO! It's a "chess" game, silly, just wait!

[sinkingfeeling]

5. And you know what's in a bill that hasn't even been introduced, how?

[edhopper]

7. You don't have to be a weatherman

to know which way the wind blows.

[enlightenment]

9. This response is getting a little old.

Yes, most of us are aware that no single bill has been introduced on the floor of either house, but there are certainly several floating around in various forms.

The response to criticism, however, operates on two logically incompatible levels, depending on the issue. Either there is a bill (or bills) under consideration and worthy of comment - or there is nothing until something is voted on . . . which renders discussion pretty moot.

To tell a wing-nut who rants about 'death panels' that 'there is no such thing in the bill' and turn around and tell someone else that, in essence, 'you can't know what's in the bill because it hasn't been introduced' is just plain silly.

But that's what quite a few people are doing - and what that's called, in reality, is 'shutting down debate'.

[sinkingfeeling]

13. Maybe, but the only draft bill that I'm aware of that doesn't include a public option is one in the

Senate.

[ipaint]

6. Most people are not in the middle class but in the working class

and below. No investment income, lower level jobs, stagnant wages, crappy benefits. The real middle class will get something from the bill, probably a premium cut, a little help in the form of subsidies and a very questionable promise that the gov. will regulate the insurance companies.

Without some form of single payer the rest of us will get screwed. The concept that basic consumer protections from ins. industry abuses need to be negotiated, with the victims giving up much needed reform, in order to placate the criminal ins. industry is pathetic and a good indication of who really is in charge.

[edhopper]

8. You are right

but I was just trying to group the lower 90%-95% who aren't getting help.

[quiet.american]

10. Extended unemployment insurance, tax cut, Social Security stimulus checks --

Members of my family have directly benefited from these items Pres. Obama "gave" us.

Can't agree with you on this one. These actions have been a lifeline for us. And we're no wealthy elite.

[berni_mccoy]

12. Fail.

[Dawgs]

14. Fail. We ALL would be in much deeper shit if it weren't for the bailouts.

It's sad that you refuse to see that fact.

[edhopper]

16. I do see the need for the bailouts

what bothers me is the total lack of consequences or restrictions with the bailout $$. Banks use it for bigger and bigger compensation, Goldman games the system, gets all there losses covered through money funneled to AIG and makes billions more playing with government money.
Have we even gotten a curb on credit card usury rates or mortgage cramdowns? No.
Public risk, private profits.

[HamdenRice]

19. "total lack of consequences or restrictions with the bailout $$"-- includes paying it back???

How can you keep spouting this, when the financial press is reporting that the TARP recipients are paying back the TARP funds, and that so far the Treasury has made money on every TARP transaction that has been paid back?

How is the requirement that the money be paid back, not a "restriction"?

Did you read the TARP legislation or the terms of the TARP preferred stock that the Treasury bought? They're both on line, and there are hundreds of pages of restrictions.

If it makes you feel good to believe the myth that there were no restrictions, fine, but don't go posting your dystopian fantasies as fact on a political message board.

[redqueen]

18. *cough*BULLSHIT*cough*

[Wednesdays]

20. K&R

:kick: