nevermind, clearly you all are more interested in whining about Rush Limbaugh than discussing the principles of free market economy vs socialised government controlled economy..

so bash away, have fun.. no progess will be made as long as those who refuse to acknowledge that democrat comtrolled congresses and democrat initiatives are what kicked off the housing boom and bust that's largely to blame for the situation in the first place..

government fiddling with the market is problem, not the solution..

"Government fiddling with the market". It started with giving the banks the money. That was fiddling with the market. Do you think that they should or shouldn't have done that?

ok so they can lie more??
we need an attorney general...to prosecute these criminals....stealing our money from our social security...our common funds...how many more bridges need to collapse....how many more hurricanes...how many more american dead to make halliburton money...Cheny/Bush??

See, this is why this is funny. Are you really not noticing a lie here or are you hoping to mud the waters and let the lie to remain unnamed?

I hope it is the former, not the latter.

Let me attempt to clear this up, line by line.



O.K. Easy out, - refuse the bailout money.


True. This is not what I am arguing against.

He does not mention the experience level of stockholders.
Because it doesn't matter, since they "put their money where their mouth is". True again.

But watch this: when he discusses bailout money, he does not think that the bailout money investor (the government) must exercize any sort of control. This time, he omits the investment factor. This time, he focuses on Obama lack of experience.




I hope so too.



But it is a lie to not use the same set of qualifications when discussing just another investor, the government. What is good for the goose must be good for the gander.

It should not matter then, if another investor, the government, has any experience or not, should it?



I am not against this thought. If I had a bank, there is no way I would take the government's money. It's no different that selling your soul to the devil. So, they should refuse bailout and be free, or take the money and be ruled by their new investor, the most important one, the one that invested in them when no one else would.



What happens when a corporation doesn't like what it's stockholders want? Too bad, you have sold your stock.

Same goes here. It's too bad you took the bailout money.

No, it didn't "start" with giving the banks money.. It started under Carter, continued under Clinton in 1992 and Fannie and Freedie cratered the market with their "Fair Housing Initiative" and "community reinvestment act" are AFFIRMATIVE ACTION and are specifically to blame for what's happening now...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64

Learn the truth before you spout your lies...

but no, there shouldn;t have been a bailout in the first place.

Sorry to post this in your thread, Nogames. I just thought it was interesting as it pertained to the topic. It's today's news.


WASHINGTON – The federal government overpaid for stocks and other assets in attempting to help financial institutions last year, a government watchdog said Thursday, taking further issue with the beleaguered $700 billion rescue program.

Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the bailout funds, told the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday that Treasury in 2008 paid $254 billion and received assets worth about $176 billion.

The figures were reached by extrapolating the results of a study of 10 government transactions, comparing the price paid by Treasury and the value of the asset at the time of purchase. Warren did not present details of the transactions the panel analyzed. A full report will be released Friday.

In a bright spot for the rescue program, however, banks that received capital infusions from Treasury have already paid $271 million in dividends to the federal government. A Treasury official said Thursday that banks are expected to pay more than $1.5 billion in dividends by the end of this month. Among them is Wells Fargo, which received a $25 billion infusion. The bank announced this week it would pay Treasury $371 million in dividends.

Still, lawmakers and watchdog groups continued to express frustration with the implementation of the rescue plan, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Congress approved the plan last fall, but members of both parties criticized spending decisions by the Bush administration and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

The misgivings come as new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is preparing to place the Obama administration's imprint on the program with a sweeping new framework for helping banks, loosening credit and helping reduce foreclosures. Geithner plans to unveil the changes next week.

"The plan will strengthen transparency and accountability measures so that taxpayers know where and how their money is being spent and whether it's achieving real results," said Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker.

Referring to overpayment on assets, Warren said Treasury has failed to specify its goals and methods in helping more than 300 institutions.

"There may be good policy reasons for overpaying, but without a clearly delineated reason we can't know that," Warren said.

Senate Banking chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said the overpayment was sure to "raise eyebrows."

"I can understand some gap," he said. "No one is expecting perfection between the price you pay and what you think you're getting. But that's a pretty large disparity."

"Spout your lies"? Do you have anger issues?

darn tootin' I'm angry...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU

the very folks who are responsible for the economic crisis are the ones now preaching personal responsibility and attempting to hijack the free market!!

Funny to see the comments here from some of the same posters who were howling about how the wall street fat cats used tax payer monies.

But then all this is the fault of Obama and Clinton right?

Shrub...he was a victim of liberal policies.

haha

They had 18 billion dollars in bonuses. Of course something should be done about it.

Well, you don't have to be rude to me.

I watched the video. I see Obama rallying for community values with the different organizations there. Considering that he talks alot about grass roots efforts, that's no surprise.

This seems to be the major point of contention here so I'll just use this as a jumping-off point.

So let's say that the investor is the government and by extention, the taxpayers. Obama's acting as the sole voice of the millions of taxpayers. So you say "well he's the president of course he speaks for the American people".. True enough but just going by the vote distribution there's a good 45.7% of American Voters that disageree with his standpoint as evidenced by the fact that they voted for the other guy. That puts those "investors" without a voice in their investment.. And I'm just spitballing here, but I'm guessing they might not agree with the way he's going about it.

your agruement assumes Obama is not only the proxy voter for all the "investors", it puts him in the position the majority stock holder!

which is certainly not the case!

A vote is not all the votes..

The President of the United States is not in position of CEO of all those companies by virtue of their having taken the money but that's the position he's assuming when he makes statements like "We're capping executive salaries at $500,000/yr"

That's a dangerous game to be playing... Am I the only one here that sees that??

I appreciate where you're coming from, I do.. but putting Obama or even the Congress in the position of Superstockholder is DANGEROUS for business and bad for capitalism.

On the upside, though while a rank socialist, he's getting this "hostile take-over" business down pat..

Some banks, on the news that Obama wanted to engage Draconian type restrictions, are giving the money back!

If this were pure capitalism in play right now, the whole point would be moot. The bank stocks would be delisted, the investors would have lost their money in absolute bankruptcy and there would be NOTHING for a CEO to be a CEO _of_.

When the government bailed out Chrysler back in the 80's, Iaccoca took the CEO's job for a dollar a year. It was only when he put Chrysler back on track that he got a hefty salary. See, a true capitalist puts money and sweat equity into something before expecting something back. A LOT of CEOs these days don't have much of their own money invested in their own company's stock, and just about none of them were founders of the companies.

Instead, they play games with options and pump and dump schemes. Ask Warren Buffett about this-- he'd tell you that a lot of why it's come to this is because these CEO's don't have 'skin in the game.'

-Kerry O.

Ah yes rationalize, I like that word. I would love to see these folks like by the same rules we must live by. Of course I would also like to see every day Americans learn to live smarter and less like Wall street.

I can stomach Rush for about 30 minutes, and it doesn't take really that long to catch his whole act.