H2Andy
Contributor
huh?
it was lent on paper, it will be paid back on paper.
what does this have to do with lowering our taxes?
bottom line is you don't want to admit that the money lent to the banks is coming back to the public treasury.
It's a free country!!
- Thread starter on_two_wheels
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
huh?
it was lent on paper, it will be paid back on paper.
what does this have to do with lowering our taxes?
bottom line is you don't want to admit that the money lent to the banks is coming back to the public treasury.
- Messages
- 6,921
- Reaction score
- 25
- # of dives
- I just don't log dives
It's all just fantasy money anyway.
People are talking like the US Dollar is based on limited commodity.
What the government is handing out is "confidence". They're saying "we'll do whatever is necessary to keep the country from going down the crapper" and they're doing it. If this means authorizing the Federal Reserve to type some numbers into a computer to make more money appear or letting the presses at the treasury run overtime, BFD. I'm all for it.
Factories will run, people will have jobs, they'll buy pizza and beer, the pizza and beer guys will have money and get to go diving more. I just don't see a problem with it.
If things suck too badly, within 8 years or so, we can vote in new people to try something different.
Terry
H2Andy
Contributor
Basic civics:
Direct Democracy - one person one vote everyone votes on every issue.
Representative Democracy - elected officials make the day to day decisions on your behalf.
As the US is a Representative Democracy for the most part you are not expected to vote on every issue. Thankfully, you have free speech and can discuss it. Vote the way you want to change those in power. If the elections are fair in theory your voice will be heard. Sadly, most Americans eligible to vote simply do not. I only vote in presidential elections by absentee ballot as I've been working "overseas" for several years. I probably would not vote in general elections anyway as most others seem to do.
States like Arizona have "initiatives" that are electorate driven and "referendums" that capture the views of the electorate on specific issues . More "liberal" idea. Arizona has these liberal ideas as its Constitution is newer than most states and was born out of what has been dubbed the "progressive era". Some feel this is the closer to direct democracy. The plain reality is direct democracy is too cumbersome to work in modern nation states. A small club yes... Perhaps on issues such a bailouts a nationwide referendum should of have been used?
Lincoln, well we can a agree to disagree but many support is motives. I am all for states rights, but not slavery. Protecting states rights when they endorse enslavement of others is something worth interfering with. So is polluting the environment. I think it is wonderful that CA exercised its states rights by implementing Kyoto standards while the previous administration removed the US from being a participant.
Socialism... Certainly has its advantages. Especially democratic socialism. The US Gov't has some socialist elements including social security, medicare, public schools, unemployment insurance, FDIC and safety standards enforced on private companies (i.e. FAA, EPA...). If you want to get off fossil fuel and really do something for the environment sometimes the Gov't ought to take bold steps. You can call that socialism, but some would call that leadership. IMO, some elements of socialism are a good thing. Free public schools, medical care for all "citizens" and taxes if used without corruption for the public welfare are good things. Clearly our last President got it wrong on so many issues.
One elected official going against the bailouts (can't remember the name) said you want to privatize profits but socialize the losses. In essence, that is what is happening.
Free speech is a great thing!
Direct Democracy - one person one vote everyone votes on every issue.
Representative Democracy - elected officials make the day to day decisions on your behalf.
As the US is a Representative Democracy for the most part you are not expected to vote on every issue. Thankfully, you have free speech and can discuss it. Vote the way you want to change those in power. If the elections are fair in theory your voice will be heard. Sadly, most Americans eligible to vote simply do not. I only vote in presidential elections by absentee ballot as I've been working "overseas" for several years. I probably would not vote in general elections anyway as most others seem to do.
States like Arizona have "initiatives" that are electorate driven and "referendums" that capture the views of the electorate on specific issues . More "liberal" idea. Arizona has these liberal ideas as its Constitution is newer than most states and was born out of what has been dubbed the "progressive era". Some feel this is the closer to direct democracy. The plain reality is direct democracy is too cumbersome to work in modern nation states. A small club yes... Perhaps on issues such a bailouts a nationwide referendum should of have been used?
Lincoln, well we can a agree to disagree but many support is motives. I am all for states rights, but not slavery. Protecting states rights when they endorse enslavement of others is something worth interfering with. So is polluting the environment. I think it is wonderful that CA exercised its states rights by implementing Kyoto standards while the previous administration removed the US from being a participant.
Socialism... Certainly has its advantages. Especially democratic socialism. The US Gov't has some socialist elements including social security, medicare, public schools, unemployment insurance, FDIC and safety standards enforced on private companies (i.e. FAA, EPA...). If you want to get off fossil fuel and really do something for the environment sometimes the Gov't ought to take bold steps. You can call that socialism, but some would call that leadership. IMO, some elements of socialism are a good thing. Free public schools, medical care for all "citizens" and taxes if used without corruption for the public welfare are good things. Clearly our last President got it wrong on so many issues.
One elected official going against the bailouts (can't remember the name) said you want to privatize profits but socialize the losses. In essence, that is what is happening.
Free speech is a great thing!
OP
on_two_wheels
Contributor
I'm not afraid to admit anything, especially that what was written in that article is accurate. However, what does it really say? Nine institutions may be paying it back. Nine out of how many? At least 207 banks received TARP funds. Additionally, it's saying more will be paid back than expected....not more than what they were paid.
I admit, SOME of the money will be repaid soon and much coming from CEOs that are members of the same organization as the Fed headshots.
It has a lot to do with lowering our taxes. $250 billion was set aside for direct investing for banks. When the banks become profitable, the government should earn a return on those investments. Same with GM. That, in turn, should go to the deficit. When that happens, our taxes should go down. That's the relationship between this and taxes.
The conversation is certainly enjoyable, regardless of opinion. Gracias!! ;-)
Edit: CNBC reported as of May 29th "Treasury has received $445.9 mln in repayments so far." Remember how much went out?
Last edited:
H2Andy
Contributor
i never said you were
i said you didn't want to
yes, this was a CF ... and yes, we'll probably never get every penny we loaned out in terms of having every bank pay every cent. it's not about that.
instead, we will get A LOT more back in the form of keeping the economy from doing a deep six and spending the next decade at near zero grown (see Japan in the 90's)
already there are excellent signs of a recovery on the way. i doubt we'd be here this soon without the massive credit infusion (that's what the bailouts were) which the Feds did
instead, we'd be faced with a string of bank failures which would kill credit, which would have sent the economy into an even deeper spiral, which would have taken years and trillions to fix
despite the seemingly enormous price tag, this is peanuts compared to what it would cost the US to spend the next decade at near zero growth
Government interference was a major cause of problems in the auto industry and banking in the first place.
Government imposed standards forced auto makers to build cars that nobody wants and made them too costly to boot. Now that the government is running the auto industry, it doesn't need to be profitable. They'll cover the cost by taking my pay check away from me...of course, I won't be able to afford to own a car myself.
Government imposed standards pushed banks to lend money to people who shouldn't have been borrowing. LOL no sooner does the government bail out the banks and what do they do?...tell the banks to loosen up on credit cards and auto loans. People spending money they don't have IS the problem. Of course nobody is better at that than the government. My bank didn't take any government money. Then again, they lend money to people like me...who buy houses they can afford, put 20% down, work for a living, don't carry credit card debt and can afford the mortgage payments. I have my house, the bank makes a profit and all is well.
I hate socialism. I'll keep my freedom, money and Guns. You can keep your change!
Government imposed standards forced auto makers to build cars that nobody wants and made them too costly to boot. Now that the government is running the auto industry, it doesn't need to be profitable. They'll cover the cost by taking my pay check away from me...of course, I won't be able to afford to own a car myself.
Government imposed standards pushed banks to lend money to people who shouldn't have been borrowing. LOL no sooner does the government bail out the banks and what do they do?...tell the banks to loosen up on credit cards and auto loans. People spending money they don't have IS the problem. Of course nobody is better at that than the government. My bank didn't take any government money. Then again, they lend money to people like me...who buy houses they can afford, put 20% down, work for a living, don't carry credit card debt and can afford the mortgage payments. I have my house, the bank makes a profit and all is well.
I hate socialism. I'll keep my freedom, money and Guns. You can keep your change!
OP
on_two_wheels
Contributor
Hey, Andy...good morning. 
I agree that infusing the banks was necessary to some degree. We've all seen the reports on how the money was spent initially (corporate retreats, bonuses, etc). That shows either A) They are sooooo bad with money they should go under anyway or B) they didn't need the money to begin with. However, the Great Depression showed that hoarding money only worsens a recession/depression. The problem is that MANY banks received the money and still did not increase lending, plus there was no checks/balances system by the government to see that they did. CBS did a survey of 25 banks that received at least $1 mil in TARP funds. Less than 5 stated in response that they had increased lending.
Additionally, the GM is a separate issue from the banks. As we discussed that earlier, it was $50 bil to avoid the inevitible. In August or Sept of last year, GM said if it didn't receive a bailout, they'd be out of money by this summer. Okay....that means they had enough to get them through to this point before going bankrupt. Well now they're going bankrupt and still got $20 bil. So where did the $20 bil go? They already had enough money to get to this point and it didn't cost $20 bil to come up with a plan. They claim to have increased lending but having just bought a Silverado just after the bailout, the salespeople said it was actually hard to get people approved. Hmmmm.
I'm open minded enough to know I might be full of crap. If that is the case, we'll all be happy in the end. If there's validity to it, then we'll all be sorry for not paying more attention to it. We all want to believe the govenment is working on our behalf. I just don't believe it anymore. To spend a trillion dollars of taxpayer money without any regulation on it or taxpayer approval is ridiculous and a demonstration of our lack of power.
I agree that infusing the banks was necessary to some degree. We've all seen the reports on how the money was spent initially (corporate retreats, bonuses, etc). That shows either A) They are sooooo bad with money they should go under anyway or B) they didn't need the money to begin with. However, the Great Depression showed that hoarding money only worsens a recession/depression. The problem is that MANY banks received the money and still did not increase lending, plus there was no checks/balances system by the government to see that they did. CBS did a survey of 25 banks that received at least $1 mil in TARP funds. Less than 5 stated in response that they had increased lending.
Additionally, the GM is a separate issue from the banks. As we discussed that earlier, it was $50 bil to avoid the inevitible. In August or Sept of last year, GM said if it didn't receive a bailout, they'd be out of money by this summer. Okay....that means they had enough to get them through to this point before going bankrupt. Well now they're going bankrupt and still got $20 bil. So where did the $20 bil go? They already had enough money to get to this point and it didn't cost $20 bil to come up with a plan. They claim to have increased lending but having just bought a Silverado just after the bailout, the salespeople said it was actually hard to get people approved. Hmmmm.
I'm open minded enough to know I might be full of crap. If that is the case, we'll all be happy in the end. If there's validity to it, then we'll all be sorry for not paying more attention to it. We all want to believe the govenment is working on our behalf. I just don't believe it anymore. To spend a trillion dollars of taxpayer money without any regulation on it or taxpayer approval is ridiculous and a demonstration of our lack of power.
They didn't just spend a trillion dollars. They spent a trillion dollars they don't have. It's not we who should be voting on it. They spent my grandson's money. He should get a vote but he's only two years old. The government is in dire need of a bail-out.
The answer lies in free markets and free people but the freedom is rapidly disappearing.
The answer lies in free markets and free people but the freedom is rapidly disappearing.
OP
on_two_wheels
Contributor
By the way, just so everyone is clear, I truly think the US has the absolute BEST system of government. The system is only good as the people in it, though. I just think too many people in power have their own collective goal rather than working for their constituents.
Jesse Ventura (clearly a politician) said publicly that democrats and republicans are on the same team. They just give the impression of opposites because that's what america needs to see since we can't all agree. He compared it to wrestling. The good guy fights the bad guy in the ring but backstage they're good friends and both know the outcome before the match begins.
Jesse Ventura (clearly a politician) said publicly that democrats and republicans are on the same team. They just give the impression of opposites because that's what america needs to see since we can't all agree. He compared it to wrestling. The good guy fights the bad guy in the ring but backstage they're good friends and both know the outcome before the match begins.
Similar threads
