Cynthetiq

So really? Is this what it will be? "Stop! Or I'll say stop again!!!!"

Why should we continue to bail out BAD BEHAVIOR????

But more to the title of what I posted here. What should the president do? Should he just basically say,"I don't approve of that..." or should there be some sort of ability/penalty for him to be able to penalize these guys for profiteering or even racketeering?

I'm really disgusted at this behavior. It's unconscionable, yet people are continually rewarded for being stupid and greedy.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Seems like a meaningless gesture. There should have been specific earmarking for the money and if they fooled around there are real consequences. Like being fired.

shakran

This is why it was stupid to give them the bailout money without setting down ground rules first. What we did in the first bailout was the equivalent of giving 20 bucks to a wino to try and solve the homeless problem. The wino isn't going to put the money into a savings account until he can afford to get a place to live. He's going to buy liquor for instant gratification.

The banks and investment firm CEO's aren't going to give a shit what happens to their company or their clients, or the country. As long as they have their oversized piece of pie as their instant gratification, that's all they care about.

Trouble is, Obama's hands are kinda tied. We gave them the money. We didn't give them the money and make them sign a contract agreeing not to blow it on parties, jets, and executive bonuses.

I can't give you a present and then come back in a month and demand that you give it back because I don't like where you displayed it. And similarly, we can't demand the money back because we don't like what they're doing with it, because the money is no longer ours, it's theirs, and they can do with it as they please.

robot_parade

I think Shakran is absolutely right. But, I think Obama using his bully-pulpit to loudly point out these excesses, and call them out for it, is the best he can do with the money that's already been given out. Congress was effectively railroaded into passing the TARP bill by the previous administration with few strings attached. They were told that fast action was required, and there wasn't 'time' to debate how to control this money. This was true, in a way - the faster you deal with something, the better. But when congress gave them the money, they turned around and handed it to the corporations with no strings (read: 'regulation', and we all know how the republicans hate regulation).

Now, Obama has an excellent argument for putting strings on the money that has yet to be given, and hopefully, will push for proper a regulatory framework for 'innovative' financial instruments. We'll see.

Cynthetiq

I agree shak, we can't do that.

But we've only given away 1/2 of the bailout money. There is also stimulus money as well that will be coming down the pike.

I believe that we can't do anything about what's already been handed out, but I believe that we should be able to as the taxpayers demand that there be no more money handed out without governance or stipulations.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

tisonlyi

The sooner everyone wakes up, evaluates this thing holistically and a global jubilee is called on all derivatives, perhaps all debts, and then try to set up an economy based around something other than the manipulated value of social contracts (fiat currency) or pretty-yet-irrelevant commodities, the better.

By the way folks, the bond market is starting to choke under the flood of govt debts being issued around the world.

A certain recently deceased comedian had it nailed many years ago.

Live, Monday night white collar crucifixions, on pay-per-view.

I can't find a link.

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

Cynosure

What infuriates me is how eager and quick the Bush administration was to implement the bailout that helped mostly the banking leaders and investors, and how there was little if any accountability or transparency as to how that bailout money was being spent; but now how the Republicans are dragging their heels, if not outright taking a stand against, the economic stimulus package that the Obama administration is seeking to implementing, to mostly help the common man.



Twenty years or so ago, I used to vote mostly Republican. But nowadays, I despise the Republican Party.

aceventura3

It is interesting how when Obama was running for President he made it clear that any bailout money approved by Congress should have proper controls in place (along with two other parameters) and that in the end he was satisfied with the initial TARP legislation and that it met all of his requirements. He was adored for being calm, reflective, in control, as McCain gyrated all over the place on the issue. They rushed that inadequate, il conceived legislation through and then blamed the Bush administration for not using the money as "they" intended, even though the legislation gave way to much control to the Treasury Secretary and everybody knew it at the time. Now he is calling Wall St. irresponsible as Democrats are rushing more bailout money through Congress with il conceived legislation and inadequate controls so the funds do what they intend them to do - stimulate the economy. President Obama should focus on getting his own House (and Senate) in order.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

gee, ace, i thought you'd have understood capitalists as paragons of virtue and regulation an impediment to the optimized unfolding of that virtue, which of course happens to the greatest benefit of all mankind, cranky socialist churls aside...it's consistent with your various other pronouncements that regulation or rules or oversight originating with the state are irrational, problems---but now suddenly you're saying that there wasn't enough regulation or oversight, even though your ideology, like that of the bush people, would have tended to foreclose the need for it on principle. what gives?

and to the op---i'm not sure what more obama can do at this particular juncture---bringing pressure via the press does, however, indicate that he's already broken with the posture of the bush people relative to the financial system, which was on it's knees facing forward and making curious back and forth movements of the head.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

The original TARP legislation was bad legislation from the begining, I was against it. In my view we should let weak financial institutions fail. The irony is how quick we went from Democrats being pleased with the legislation to being displeased with it and how the Treasury Secretary did not do what "they" wanted even though they wrote the legislation and bragged about how they went from a (I think) 7 page document to a XXX page document, while saying the Bush administration was a bunch of idiots for what the administration originally presented.

Honesty about the real condition of our economy would be nice and honest about the "stimulus" package. The reality is that this recession would naturally pass even without a "stimulus" package. The real goal is to fund pet projects and issues in my opinion.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

yeah, see that last bit is a main divergence. i don't buy your argument at all. at all. i don't think anyone, anywhere buys that because it seems entirely out of phase with reality and more in phase with an attempt to retain coherence for an economic position that's at the root of almost all of this mess by shaving off all reality that's dissonant with it. which is alot of reality.

i don't have the time to wade through the problems with your revisionist interpretation of the tarp process. maybe someone else does.
no offense, but i've got stuff to do.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

I wanted to firs point out the obvious irony in Obama's position on Wall St. bonuses. When they (Congress) had the power to address the issue they failed and blame others.

Second, there is the superficial and I would suggest careless nature of his comment. First not every Wall St. firm is in need or have taken federal funds. Some have had profitable years, some managers accomplished their goals and objectives, some firms have contractual obligations with employees to pay bonuses, some bonuses are based on years/decades of service but paid in 2008, etc, etc. etc.

Third depending on what data is used Wall St. bonuses are down about 44% in 2008 compared to 2007.

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

Prseident Obama's comments were clearly irresponsible and lacked any insight. I think he simply further inflamed class warfare rhetoric, perhaps that was his goal.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Tully Mars

I'm sorry when you go to DC with your hand out looking for tax payer money because you've lost billions of dollars and now your company is about to fail your bonus shouldn't be reduced by 44%, it should be reduced by 100%. When you pay back the tax payers and your company goes back to making money then you can write yourself large checks with lots of zeros on them all you want.

And it still bugs me these guys went to DC and basically said "give us money or we fail." And the powers that be couldn't write that check fast enough. Few questions were asked and few safeguards for the use of the money were put in place. Hell I keep reading stories stating no one seems to know where the money's going/went. Looks like some of it went or is going to bonuses.

All that's in complete contrast to the reaction the auto markers got when they went looking for tax payer cash. It was all where, when and how is the money going to be used to turn your industry profitable... oh and by the way how did you get here today? I never heard the Wall St. guys asked if they flew coach.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

aceventura3

Perhaps someone can separate the "Wall St." bonuses paid to companies getting handouts compared to those who did not, and executive level bonuses compared to non-executive bonuses. Why lump everyone in the same boat? There are plenty of honest, good, hardworking people on "Wall St" deserving of being paid bonuses based on the terms of their compensation packages.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Tully Mars

So separate them. You seem to know the difference. Explain why and who are deserving of being paid bonuses at tax payer expense. Take all those people out the boat who do not belong there, but be sure to explain why.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

aceventura3

President Obama made the irresponsible comment about the bonuses.

He read a headline and failed to do what he should have done. He has the power of his office to drill down into the data and actually act on the information rather than simply making an irresponsible comment. The guy is President, he should act like it. Don't you agree that rather than making a statement to the press, we could have been better served by action.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

so what you're saying, ace, is that you have no idea which of the various wall street folk who diverted bush administration no-strings-attached bailout monies into personal bonuses wear white hats and which black hats--what you're saying is that some pollyanna faith in the world of financial flows is what is required, even now after their own actions have ground the entire economy to the brink of a significant debacle, which in turn you deal with by pretending it's not there. what you're saying is that stating the obvious--that diverting this bush administration no-strings-attached bailout money into bonuses---was an ill-timed and ill-considered bit of theater is going too far. what you're saying is that we should join you in silent worship of the captains of the financial industry, even now.

that's goofy.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Tully Mars

I think the POTUS should point out when bull shit like this happens. Tax payer money, money provided by the Bush Admin., is going to bail out companies that are using some of that money to pay bonuses. You seem to think at least some of these bonuses were going to "honest, good, hardworking people on "Wall St" deserving of being paid bonuses based on the terms of their compensation packages." I think if they deserved them their companies wouldn't need the damn bail out.

So now you say the current POTUS either shouldn't have said he thought it was bull shit or he should have given details of exactly which individuals he was talking about? You want the POTUS to give you a list of bonuses and individuals being wrongly funded by the tax payer? Wonder how long that press conference would run? I think the POTUS made it clear any tax funds going to bonuses was bullshit and I agree.

In your previous post you stated some of these people deserved them. I'm asking you to provide such a list. If you know they exists you must know who they are, right?

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

guyy

This comes down to class bias, pure and simple.

Work for failing Wall St. firm? You're cool. Take bonus, squirrel it away in a Bahamian bank account. No questions asked. We love you!

Work for failing auto company? You need to be fired and relieved of retirement and health benefits.

aceventura3

If what I wrote is not clear ask for a clarification.

The above is goofy and is no reflection of anything I have written on this issue.

Obama voted for the TARP legislation saying it met his requirements. Now he is saying the legislation was flawed. Some blame Bush. I think that is goofy. I think his statement on "Wall St." bonuses was irresponsible and beneath the dignity of the office of President. If that is not clear, let me know.
-----Added 2/2/2009 at 05 : 22 : 49-----
Perhaps, he should use factual information. He seemed to lump the innocent with the guilty. For what purpose? Does he think his statement would actually shame those who would take government money, bonuses, shareholder money, their grandmothers money...etc., etc., if people broke the law investigate and put them in jail. If the law is poorly written with loop holes, fix the law.

There are firms on "Wall St." that did not want/ did not get government money.

Why wasn't it bullshit when they wrote the legislation? Obama and the Democrats are supposed to be "smart", right?

If you want to play. Here is one of note JP Morgan Chase. They would be considered a "Wall St." firm they made a profit in the fourth quarter of 08 and during the fiscal year 08. they did not do as well as in 07, but I would think the people at JPM may deserve a bonus.

No doubt you won't respect any source I give, but here is an excert from their earnings press release, you can do you own homework to verify.

JPMorgan Chase Reports Full-Year 2008 Net Income of $5.6 Billion, or $1.37 Per Share, on Revenue of $67.3 Billion; Fourth-Quarter 2008 Net Income of $702 Million, or $0.07 Per Share - WSJ.com

Now what is your next objection? Let's play! We can do this til the cows come home.
-----Added 2/2/2009 at 05 : 30 : 16-----
Why can't you folks understand the difference between failing companies (GM, Fannie Mae, Country Wide, etc.,) and companies doing well given the recession? Most of the firms on "Wall St." are going to make it through this financial crisis just fine. Washington could have let the weak and failing companies fail. Failed companies don't pay bonuses, because a bankruptcy court judge wont allow it unless all other obligations have been met.

Just admit that the folks in Washington don't know what they are doing.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

JumpinJesus

Pardon my ignorance on this issue, as I haven't fully versed myself on it, but has anyone explained where this money is coming from?

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

dc_dux

ace...there you go again.

Anyone who doesnt agree with you that corporate tax cuts and tax cuts for the wealthy are the best job stimulus or solution to the worst economic downturn in our lifetime doesnt "know what they are doing."

We tried your way....tax cuts heavily favoring the wealthy, tax incentives and breaks for corporations,de-regulation, etc...and it failed.

Believe it not, ace....there can be honest differences of opinion. Economics is not an exact science.

You dont know more than the rest of us or those in Washington.
-----Added 2/2/2009 at 07 : 04 : 54-----
Unfortunately, the same place as the $trillion that Bush put off-budget to fund his folly in Iraq.

But IMO, there is no other option to "fix" the economy or it will continue to sink. There were other options for Iraq, most notably staying the fuck out since it posed no direct threat to the US.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

guyy

Like it or not, banks etc. play a central role in today's capitalist economy. Yes, you can let banks fail. Money & goods will then circulate more slowly and in smaller amounts. Get rid of evil fiat currency and that circulation can be even slower and smaller.

In some cases, the motor behind the laissez-faillir argument is a kind of nihilism. In others, it's merely ignorance.

Tully Mars

I always thought the TARP came out of the Bush Admin. back in Sept. or Oct. '08 and was written by (mostly) Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke.


I don't think the people in DC know what they're doing. I don't think anyone knows the solution to this deep hole we've dug ourselves into.

Plus I've repeatedly said my objection is not to companies making money and giving bonuses. My objection and my understanding of the POTUS objection is aimed at companies that took TARP funds because they were not profitable and used a portion of that money to pay bonuses.

I've never had a problem with profitable companies paying people whatever they want. Which is why I said-

And my home work shows JP Morgan took 25B in Tarp funs-



So, they did better after taking 25B in TARP in '08 then they did in '07 when they didn't get an extra 25B, right?

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

aceventura3

My way? My way would be a simple tax code based on consumption rather than income. My way would be regulation based on clearly defined and measurable goals and objectives. My way would be to allow failing institutions to fail. My way would be fiscal discipline that would rarely result in deficit spending (I think deficit spending is o.k. in times of war or crisis). My way would be term limits for members of Congress. My way would be cabinet nominees pay their taxes in the year the taxes are due with no relationship to being nominated.
-----Added 3/2/2009 at 12 : 34 : 19-----
Or, the government could do what worked during the S&L crisis if you are in fear of what would happen if the government did not step in. I don't fear bank failures and I think banks when they begin to think they are too big to fail assume more risk. Good conservative, well managed banks should be rewarded, we should not reward failure with bailouts.
-----Added 3/2/2009 at 12 : 41 : 49-----
Yes, and it was "inadequate". Democrats were all over the media talking about it and how they improved it. Obama specifically said the final version met all of his requirements.
Did they have the real option of not taking the TARP money? Did they step in, as a healthy financial institution, and buy distressed institutions and assets? Did they offer mortgage relief to some of their clients? Did they do what was asked of them with the money? However, the real point is that there are people working at JPM that deserve and earned their bonuses. Are you disputing that or are we on a different point?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

guyy

Ace, i'm sympathetic to your view, but you really can't let the banks fail. They're not like piggy banks, and we're already beyond the S&L debacle. If there is a generalised crisis of confidence in the financial system, any bank could fail because they lend their deposits out and because they deal in IOUs and other financial paper. Banks even deal in instruments derived from financial paper. They do that because it makes sale of goods and services easier and faster. If people have to wait for cash, sales will be fewer and farther between. As a result, equipment is used less frequently, shop floors are more idle, fewer workers are needed. In turn, equipment is not replaced, equipment makers hire fewer workers, who can therefore buy less, and so on. It's not a moral issue, but a question of how slowly you want to reproduce capital and how small you want the economy to be. Slow and small means fewer goods, fewer jobs, -- and fewer capitalists.

In the grand scheme of things, slower and smaller is probably better. However, within a capitalist economy, it is a crisis, and just to remind you, a crisis is a point where the survival of the system is in question. It is in question not only because it becomes unclear whether capital is going to be able to reproduce itself, but because the ideological buttresses of the system, e.g. a 'rising tide lifting all boats' can no longer hold.

Willravel

What would letting the banks fail look like? I'm honestly curious.

dc_dux

Someone should admonish the esteemed Republican members of Congress and conservative talking heads for repeatedly misrepresenting the stimulus package by suggestion it wont created jobs and/or most of the money is in the out years.

Last night on Fox:
According to the CBO report, the plan could be expected to create 3 million jobs in the first 18 months, with over 2/3 of the funds spent during that period and much of the remaining funds allocated beyond that time frame to support continued long term employment.

Not that I dont look forward to a better plan as a result of the current debate in the Senate. There is room for improvement before final passage, but not room to change the core approach...job stimulus does not require massive tax relief for the wealthiest taxpayers and the corporate sector.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

guyy

1930.

roachboy

from this overview of the present mess.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/tit...6414492~db=all

this should take you to the table of contents.
the article is the first one:

The Importance of the Financial Crisis
5 – 14
Author: Alexander Nicoll

it offers little, but is a good, if general, reminder of what's at play, how high the stakes are, and of the problems that await should obama remain too mired in the nets of neoliberal thinking.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

guyy

That link doesn't work for me.

roachboy

i changed the link.
i think this one will work.
let me know if it doesn't and i'll try something else.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

guyy

It works. Danke.

aceventura3

Banks fail. FDIC provides coverage for depositors. Regulators take control of the bank for an orderly disposition of assets. In some cases deals are brokered. In 2008 all of the bank failures were handled orderly, same in 2007, 2006, 2005, etc., etc.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

Hypothetically, could the FDIC have covered all of the failures?

guyy

Of course, we owe the FDIC to New Deal interference in the market place. If those dumbass depositors were smarter, they would have done their homework and stashed their cash in a better bank. They're being rewarded for failure.

Anyway, banks never have enough money to cover a panic. That's the nature of banks. They depend on confidence in the economy and the banking system, so even an innocent, doe-eyed bank could be crushed in a panicky stampede. And even if there weren't, they could be slowly asphyxiated by secondary effects of other bank failures.

You could say the same thing about currency, which would not be unaffected by cascading bank failures.

aceventura3

The US Census Bureau projects the population to increase about 3 million people per year. If the economy creates 3 million jobs our current unemployment rate will stay as it is now, netting no gains. I am not going to speak for the people you mention or defend their words, but I will say Obama's premise that government can create lasting jobs is false. People investing in the future and making valued goods or creating valued services creates lasting jobs. People being freed from excessive taxation and excessive regulation allows for more investment in the future.

The concept is simple if the government takes a dollar from me and spends it on you, nothing of value happened. If the government uses debt, that debt will be paid in higher taxes or inflation in the future.
-----Added 3/2/2009 at 04 : 43 : 55-----
Yes. Two possibilities, one the FDIC could raise premiums or raise funds from member banks. Bank regulators could adjust the rules governing solvency issues so that marginal banks don't get caught in a panic. Or if there is going to be a "bailout", the government could provide guarantees or financial support to the FDIC.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

Okay. So let's say we let Citi, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, PNC, US Bank, and Capital One (what's in your wallet?) die. They all file bankruptcy and then the FDIC then essentially writes checks to everyone who had money in these banks. People take their checks and invest in banks that didn't die. The market stabilizes? I'm serious, walk me through what might happen.

aceventura3

It is called "insurance", which is different than rewarding failure. Buying insurance and paying a premium to manage risk is a good thing in my view.

That is why the Federal Reserve lends money to banks - to cover their short-term needs.

I am not sure where you want to go with this, but my point is that there are safe-guards in place. the folks in Washington panicked and for some reason would not allow the system to work. So you had failed institutions that assumed too much risk going to Washington asking for a "bailout", they sell a story that the world would end if they failed, Washington bought in to it, the banks who got "bailed" were put in position to laugh all the way to the "bank" with big bonuses and all at tax payer expense. Washington in a way got suckered. Obama assured us that controls were in place, he was wrong or he lied. Now he lumps the good with the bad.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

guyy

3,000,000 more people means 3,000,000 more diaper buyers, pumpkin eaters, tire buyers, etc. all of which creates a certain potential for jobs outside whatever is created in the Obama package.