ExiledInIllinois Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) I really wouldn't mind all this if the pols, especially like Walker ALSO lived by their words and took significant cuts in pay and benefits. I mean come on, it starts at the top and top officials like Gov... Should be working for FREE and the good of the people of the state/nation. And if paid, should only be paid a very basic amount. Politics is not to get rich over and earn 6/7 figure incomes. I also like how Walker didn't have the balls to stand up to the biggest drain in all this: The police and firefighters. He went after the weak pencil pushers. Typical. Edited March 14, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I really wouldn't mind all this if the pols, especially like Walker ALSO lived by their words and took significant cuts in pay and benefits. I mean come on, it starts at the top and top officials like Gov... Should be working for FREE and the good of the people of the state/nation. And if paid, should only be paid a very basic amount. Politics is not to get rich over and earn 6/7 figure incomes. I also like how Walker didn't have the balls to stand up to the biggest drain in all this: The police and firefighters. He went after the weak pencil pushers. Typical. Police and firefighters are a drain on a Wisconsin? Really? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) Police and firefighters are a drain on a Wisconsin? Really? Wow. Yep... As UNIONS too... Just like everywhere else and like UNION teachers. Edited March 14, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 The reason the banks could pay the Bailout back was that the FED bought trillions of dollars of toxic assets from them at pre housing collapse values Not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Not true. It may be true... Haven't the banks been chasing after the people in court then. Basically they got bailouts to sue people. Once again, blame the lawyers. Wouldn't it have been been to just give the money to the people on condition that the banks get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 It may be true... Haven't the banks been chasing after the people in court then. Basically they got bailouts to sue people. Once again, blame the lawyers. Wouldn't it have been been to just give the money to the people on condition that the banks get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Not true. Too True Bloomberg link My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Too True Bloomberg link My link as to the cheap money Recall our prior discussions as to the (actual) reasons we have such an aggressive monetary policy. Here are four primary factors I have concluded are behind the Federal Reserve policy of quantitative easing: 1. To avoid a repeat of the Central Bank errors of insufficient liquidity in the 1930s; 2.To provide the under-capitalized financial sector with a way to rebuild their balance sheets by borrowing cheap (from FRB) and lending dear (to Treasury); Note that a direct injection of capital is not politically feasible. 3. To avoid the painful natural cycle where huge credit booms are followed by painful de-leveraging busts; (the “hair of the dog that bit you” monetary policy) 4. To inflate asset classes in order to restore consumer and investor confidence, thus stimulating consumer spending and investing. linky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Of course, many morons believe that the GM bailout was a buddy-buddy thing between Obama and the union. Nothing new there. Sooo, are you're ok with the bailed out banks handing out huge bonuses? In the GM bailout, the unions, that had a decisively junior call on GM's assets were treated preferentially at the expense of those that DID have a senior call on assets...and what's more, that preferential treatment was outside the normal, judicial bankruptcy system, and was insted by executive fiat. How on earth is that NOT a favor to the unions by Obama? The GM bondholder specfically had their legal rights stripped from them, and the rights of others promoted over them. And outside of due process, no less. Only in your little world is that somehow "fair", and not an executive favor to the unions. Too True Bloomberg link My link No, not true. The bailout of the financial industry was the Treasury buying equity in banks to recapitalize them. TARP was supposed to be the purchase of toxic debt assets off the banks' balance sheets (which actually would have been a smart as hell move - the US government would have made a shitload more money on that deal). But some rocket surgeon - Paulson or Bernake, I think - decided that buying stock in the banks was a better bet. Your Bloomberg link is about a completely different subject - not unsurprisingly, ignorant as you are, you're completely incapable of discerning that. Your other two links are just completely idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 No Tom True and you are worse than a moron you are an apologist for crooks. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 No Tom True and you are worse than a moron you are an apologist for crooks. link How did your trillions mentioned above suddenly turn into billions here? Nice job showing how little you know of the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 No Tom True and you are worse than a moron you are an apologist for crooks. link Let's continue the pile on - of the "missing" reimbursements to the government, $273 billion belongs to Freddie, Fannie, AIG, GM & Chrysler. So, about those banks not paying back the federal government bailout? BTW, that's quite the handiwork of Bloomberg's reporters misapplying balance sheet entries in their sensational $13 trillion number. Nevre mind that you're proud of your link that shows that only $563.5 billion was disbursed, with most of it going to government protected entities and over 90% of funds disbursed to banks having been returned at a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Well, I'm gonna say this, the truth lies in between both arguments. As usual, what Lybob said was incorrect, having said that, if it wasn't for the actions of the Federal Reserve, most of those banks that received TARP funds wouldn't of been able to pay back the funds that they did. It would be inappropriate to gauge treasuries or the Fed's actions as an overall success for quite some time. Many of these actions have after-effects and unintended consequences that we can't see for quite some time. However, we are beginning to see the early stages of the inflationary implications of the Fed's decisions and we have already saw some of the effects of the bailouts (TARP). The loss of confidence from the public and how they view the Governments role in bailing out these banks, auto companies and etc. does have an impact, not so much in tangible terms but more so in how lawmakers react to the demands of the public. One way is through some of the regulations that have been placed due to TARP, some of these regulations are nonsensical and very restricting which in turn will have a tangible impact on the economy. Usually populist measures and laws written by lawmakers do more harm than good (Dodd-Frank Bill), now I am not in complete disagreement with the entire Bill, there are some measures in there that do make sense, but there are many in there that were placed to try to appease their base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) In the GM bailout, the unions, that had a decisively junior call on GM's assets were treated preferentially at the expense of those that DID have a senior call on assets...and what's more, that preferential treatment was outside the normal, judicial bankruptcy system, and was insted by executive fiat. How on earth is that NOT a favor to the unions by Obama? The GM bondholder specfically had their legal rights stripped from them, and the rights of others promoted over them. And outside of due process, no less. Only in your little world is that somehow "fair", and not an executive favor to the unions. This is dead !@#$'ing on and anyone who says different is trying to re-write history. Edited March 14, 2011 by whateverdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/14/6267543-wisconsin-law-curbs-union-dues-certification Before 2005, 16,408 Indiana state workers paid union dues out of about 25,000 who were eligible, a union membership rate of about 66 percent. Today, the figure is 1,409 out of about 20,000 eligible workers, or 7 percent. Don't worry though, there's still time for one last turn in the money machine: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42073906/ns/us_news-life/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 This is dead !@#ing on and anyone who says different is trying to re-write history. I'm interested to know what you felt the need to edit in such a post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Why do you look surprised?... Banks are chasing after people for chump change. Where is the logic in that? They are spending more on lawyers than they get back. AND IT IS YOUR MONEY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 How best to counteract the new bill? Let's give out raises effective retroactively before the bill becomes a law! http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/117983444.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 You can't make this stuff up: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118055779.html?page=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Let's attempt to put a nice cap on this thread. 1. The unions lost here, and all BS aside, this one is over. Recalling the governor can't start until next year. No way. No chance. This is over, now. The worst thing the unions can do is allow this to continue, on any level, because it only erodes the public's opinion of these unions, and either helps or has no effect on their opposition. The only people who will continue this = wingnuts = will make fine poster children for the anti-union crowd. The unions need to either reign in the remaining protesters, or disavow them totally. 2. The unions need to acknowledge just how fast this can turn into a un-winnable game of "whack-a-mole" for them. If 3, and then 6, then 12 states are all doing Wisconsin-like legislation all at once, then the unions will be faced with impossible choices, and will lose severely. 3. So, do unions want to lose big later, or lose medium now? There is no win, and there is no lose little for these unions. As I have said before, public opinion is the only thing that makes toleration of unions, in their current form, possible. Public opinion is rapidly moving from "don't agree, but willing to work something out with you" to "don't care what happens to you, now go home". The new report that says 82% of public schools get "failing" grades does not help at all. The public worker unions need to make a deal now, nationally, before the public completely stops caring what happens to them, shortly followed by every governor in the country, especially the Democratic ones, publicly opening a can of whoopass. My prediction: the egomaniacs who run the unions (see: "It's not about the kids, it's about our power") will fight, and lose. We'll see.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts