A spending freeze that does not include GETTING OUR $2 TRILLION BACK FROM WALL ST... IS NOT a freeze

[Leopolds Ghost]

Based on tweets and rumor? I guess nobody at Kos reads the newspaper anymore. Uninformed.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/25/830272/-This-place-has-lost-its-mind

No wonder they're not willing to criticize Sanders (he sold out on the Health Care bill).

Here's a hint for all those people who don't read (newspaper, books, get all their info online
and from the idiot box, and have the gall to criticise DUers for not knowing the story):

The US per capita spending burden increases by over 1% every year.

A spending freeze is a per capita spending CUT on every program for the poor.

A spending freeze that excludes defense and includes continuing demolition of
public housing and welfare (which Obama WANTS to kill) is by definition unjust.

A spending freeze that does not include GETTING OUR $2 TRILLION BACK FROM WALL STREET...

...IS NOT A SPENDING FREEZE. IT IS A BANK ROBBER JUSTIFYING HIS CRIME.

[Leopolds Ghost]

1. Ha! I got an unrec after 3 or 4 views.

Geez this country has gotten so conservative.

[Leopolds Ghost]

2. And... another unrec.

Guess some people don't like to hear the truth. They want to keep us in the dark talking about "you haven't read anything about this plan, the devil is in the details, we will never be privy to the details."

[Leopolds Ghost]

3. So... doesn't ANYONE agree?

[TwilightGardener]

4. I'm confused--aren't the banks paying back the TARP money?

[Leopolds Ghost]

5. Not really. You think the banks paying back when we're spending another $2 trillion? another unrec.

It's sad to see DUers respond negatively to a request to get back the money from Wall Street.

[vincna]

6. What's this $2 Trillion you're talking about?

If it's US debt held by Wall Street, then it's the most idiotic idea I've ever heard. If it's TARP money, there is no issue, the banks are repaying it already.

[Zynx]

7. Yeah. I really don't know what this $2 trillion is. Hell, it's not even $700 billion.

[Leopolds Ghost]

9. Yeah, nothing to see here, move along...

[Romulox]

11. I've noticed that this is a new gambit from the GD: Blind Worship crowd:

Simply pretend that the only largesse the government has heaped upon Wall Street is the TARP, thus ignoring the trillions in additional aid, including massive tax cuts ($35 BILLION for Citi in 2009 alone!) and "credit facilities" (totaling in the TRILLIONS!) that the Obama admin has extended to the banks.

It really is a sorry argument for a News Based forum, but what else have they got? :shrug:

[Zynx]

26. The actions of the Fed through the credit facilities are not Obama's doing.

That's a strange myth that has been propagated.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulox]

10. Everything must be "revenue neutral" except the blank checks for war, Timmy Geithner's bankster buds

But EVERYTHING ELSE must be "revenue neutral"!

[mopinko]

12. another request for the derivation of your number.

what $2 trillion, exactly. it is not a number that i have seen, so please back it up.

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. Do you think TARP is the only money spending on Wall St?

Where do you think the massive deficit increase is COMING from?

[mopinko]

14. lay it out.

i am as suspicious as the next person about where our tax dollars go and why. but i still want to see actual numbers.

[Romulox]

15. The poster isn't your research assistant.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trillions+wall+street+bailouts

[mopinko]

16. well then he should stfu.

anybody who bother to post here has 2 choices- back it up, or apologize for talking out your ass.

[Romulox]

17. Wrong. Your ignorance isn't an argument. nt

[inna]

18. bullshit. grow up and educate yourself a little bit.

you can start here, for example:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=trillions+bailout+wall+street&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

Behind The Real Size of the Bailout

A guide to the abbreviations, acronyms, and obscure programs that make up the $14 trillion federal bailout of Wall Street

http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/12/behind-real-size-bailout
Mon Dec. 21, 2009 12:23 PM PST

The price tag for the Wall Street bailout is often put at $700 billion—the size of the Troubled Assets Relief Program. But TARP is just the best known program in an array of more than 30 overseen by Treasury Department and Federal Reserve that have paid out or put aside money to bail out financial firms and inject money into the markets. To get a sense of the size of the real $14 trillion bailout, see our chart here. Below, a guide to the pieces of the puzzle:

Treasury Department bailout programs

Money Market Mutual Fund: In September 2008, the Treasury announced that it would insure the holdings of publicly offered money market mutual funds. According to the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), these guarantees could have potentially cost the federal government more than $3 trillion .

Public-Private Investment Fund: This joint Treasury-Federal Reserve program bought toxic assets from banks and brokerages—as much as $5 billion of assets per firm. According to SIGTARP, the government's potential exposure from the PPIF is between $500 million and $1 trillion .

TARP: As part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Treasury has made loans to or investments more than 750 banks and financial institutions. $650 billion has been paid out (not including HAMP; see below). As of December 21, 2009, $117.5 billion of that has been repaid.

~snip~

much more at: http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/12/behind-real-size-bailout

[mopinko]

21. how about a nice big helping of weasel words-

is often put at, insure the holdings, potential exposure, bought... preferred stock, cover potential losses

ok, try this one-TARP overpayment: This June, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the federal government would lose $159 billion from its TARP loans and investments due to changes in their market value. (So far, Treasury has earned $14.4 billion in dividends from TARP.)

see, my point here is that people are throwing around numbers as though they were amounts that the federal government distributed and will never see again. in point of fact, many numbers are guarantees that we will never have to make good on, many numbers are maximum amounts that far exceed actual payouts to date, and many numbers are loans that are already being paid back, with interest. so, just in the example i cite- in june it was estimated that tarp might lose $159B, but in fact, it earned $14B. so, just tossing around a bunch of numbers that ya found on the google is not really the same thing as having the facts.

[ozone_man]

20. $14.4 trillion and counting

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/real-size-bailout-treasury-fed

[OhioChick]

19. Google is your friend.

:)

[mopinko]

22. no shit.

picking numbers off a google search is not the same as knowing what you are talking about.

[SOS]

23. From Bloomberg:

[Zynx]

28. The Fed and FDIC stuff is independent of the administration.

As for FHA and Treasury actions, the only two of note are TARP and the tax breaks which only total a little over $400 billion in aid to banks.

[OhioChick]

24. No need for the rudeness.....

Do some research on your own and stop expecting others to do it for you.

[mopinko]

25. cuz your reply was so polite.

i have researched it. that's why i know the op is full of it.

fyi, "google is your friend" is an insult.

[Zynx]

27. The Federal Budget is actually fairly transparent.

You should look up OMB documents and CBO reports some time.