Where is the US economy headed?

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
No, it isn't.

What, you're God now so that is it??? What is your arguement or factual basis for telling me I am wrong? Where is the mistake?

You made a factually incorrect statement. The US government has recouped it's TARP loans by selling the stock that they took in exchange for these loans on open market. It is not the same situation as GM using one pot of bailed out money to pay back the other pot.

Your refusal to do even the smallest amount of due diligence before spouting off about the impending doom of our nation is tiresome, hawk.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

You made a factually incorrect statement. The US government has recouped it's TARP loans by selling the stock that they took in exchange for these loans on open market. It is not the same situation as GM using one pot of bailed out money to pay back the other pot

and if the bank balance sheets were still God awful, which they would be if the banks had not been given free money to lend, what were their stock be worth?

People with private money to lend were deprived of income so that the banks could recapitalize using Fed free money, and then the Banks took credit for their windfall. in both cases the one taking the credit for success did not do any work to achieve that success, in both cases the government manipulated the books and then was not honest about it, in both cases a scam has been run in the attempt to get the politicians off of the hook and to convince people that the economy is sound, when it is in fact a long long ways from being sound.....it is the same script.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
You made a factually incorrect statement. The US government has recouped it's TARP loans by selling the stock that they took in exchange for these loans on open market. It is not the same situation as GM using one pot of bailed out money to pay back the other pot
and if the bank balance sheets were still God awful, which they would be if the banks had not been given free money to lend, what were their stock be worth?

People with private money to lend were deprived of income so that the banks could recapitalize using Fed free money, and then the Banks took credit for their windfall. in both cases the one taking the credit for success did not do any work to achieve that success, in both cases the government manipulated the books and then was not honest about it, in both cases a scam has been run in the attempt to get the politicians off of the hook and to convince people that the economy is sound, when it is in fact a long long ways from being sound.....it is the same script.

No, you are the same script, Hawkeye. Doom-and-gloom all the time. America collapsing around you all the time.

I think your posts say very very little about reality, and volumes about what a bitter cynic you are, man.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

No, you are the same script, Hawkeye. Doom-and-gloom all the time. America collapsing around you all the time.

I think your posts say very very little about reality, and volumes about what a bitter cynic you are, man.

is that an admission that you can't back up your argument...or maybe you are taking a break in the hope that you can figure something out....Cause you know darn well that you are at a2k where vilifying the opposing speaker is no substitution for an argument.

We are not in high school anymore....

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I have to go, if you DO come up with something I will get back to you.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
No, you are the same script, Hawkeye. Doom-and-gloom all the time. America collapsing around you all the time.

I think your posts say very very little about reality, and volumes about what a bitter cynic you are, man.

is that an admission that you can't back up your argument...

No, I already made my argument completely. You are simply wrong when you assert an equivalence between the two cases. I showed how you were wrong. Your further explanation was not convincing in the slightest.

There's nothing more to respond to re: your argument, so I pivoted to a discussion of your personality, which frankly sucks, Hawkeye.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

What your correspondent stated does not reveal where the funds were obtained for refunding TARP--assuming it a valid claim. Were they obtained from the Stimulus package?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

What your correspondent stated does not reveal where the funds were obtained for refunding TARP--assuming it a valid claim. Were they obtained from the Stimulus package?

Embarrassingly ignorant. No funds were 'repaid;' we sold off the stock that we received in exchange for the funds in the first place.

The piece I linked made this clear. I am forced to assume that you didn't even bother reading it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

It's cheap.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

TARP Repayments Surpass Loans

By DARRELL A. HUGHES

WASHINGTON""The Treasury Department on Friday said the money repaid to taxpayers for government funds used to bail out U.S. companies has for the first time surpassed the amount of loans.

The Treasury, in its May report to Congress on the Troubled Asset Relief Program, said TARP repayments reached $194 billion, $4 billion more than the outstanding debt of $190 billion.

In a statement, the Treasury's assistant secretary for financial stability, Herb Allison, described this as a milestone and said it is "further evidence that TARP is achieving its intended objectives: stabilizing our financial system and laying the groundwork for economic recovery."

The benchmark was reached in May when the Treasury completed its sale of 1.5 billion shares of Citigroup Inc., "a transaction that provided gross proceeds of $6.18 billion to taxpayers," the Treasury said.

ican711nm wrote:

What your correspondent stated does not reveal where the funds were obtained for refunding TARP--assuming it a valid claim. Were they obtained from the Stimulus package?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No funds were 'repaid;' we sold off the stock that we received in exchange for the funds in the first place.

The piece I linked made this clear. I am forced to assume that you didn't even bother reading it.

CORRECTION!
What your correspondent stated does not reveal where the STOCKS were obtained for refunding TARP--assuming it a valid claim. Were they obtained from the Stimulus package?

Cycloptichorn, your claim is not supported or denied by your correspondent.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

CORRECTION!
What your correspondent stated does not reveal where the STOCKS were obtained for refunding TARP--assuming it a valid claim. Were they obtained from the Stimulus package?

Cycloptichorn, your claim is not supported or denied by your correspondent.

I forget how truly and deeply ignorant you are, sometimes, Ican.

When we bailed out Citibank under the TARP program, they exchanged shares of stock in their company for the money. The government has now sold those shares and used those funds to recoup the monies that were spent. So, those funds were 'obtained' when we gave them the money in the first place, just in the form of shares of their company.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@au1929,

I am sorry that I do not have a answer but I find this close to the subject. Could someone please explain to me how this lady is either correct or out of her mind. Thank you. Reasoning Self Logic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc&feature=related

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

The link, alas, is more than 45 minutes long. I assume that you watched the whole thing.
Can you try to summarize what she said in a few paragraphs? I know that is asking a lot. What struck you as particularly pertinent?
Thanks for participating here. Welcome.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

When we bailed out Citibank

Do you really not know Cyclo how silly that sounds. If you started a spiel in my pub like that nobody would hear the rest of it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
When we bailed out Citibank

Do you really not know Cyclo how silly that sounds. If you started a spiel in my pub like that nobody would hear the rest of it.

I am not interested in the second-hand description of the opinions of members of your Pub.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Thank you for takeing the time to reply. I realy do suck at giving a summary of most any subject. This lady without a doubt is very smart but what I am curious about is if she is correct in what she is saying or not?

I am sure that she may be wrong at some of what she is speaking of.[at least I would think that she is] What I would like for anyone to do is point out facts where she is wrong and give the correct answer with some sort of proof.
I am not asking any one person to point out all of her mistakes only the one or ones that any one may like to point out.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Okay. I managed to watch the 1st five minutes of her talk. I knew this was not going to go well when she started out by saying, almost tearfully, "I am going to talk from my heart."
Gag.
Then she pranced around the stage telling a long, long, long story about her grandmother.
She is on a book tour. Trying to peddle her book.
I am sorry, but I couldn't bear to watch any more of it. She should have summarized what her point was going to be in an opening paragraph or two.
Then she could go on to tell whatever stories she wanted to share from her heart.
Did she ever get around to making a point about something?

0 Replies

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic133_2.gif

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Which ignores or at even contradicts the very real fact that for 80% of the population, wages have remained stagnant since 1979. Where was Obama in 1979?

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

And how have wages changed since he became president?

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know