aREDSKIN Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 We lost $14B in the auto bailouts (at least). We lost $2.3B in the CIT Group Bankruptcy (received TARP money). Who knows how much was lost in the AIG bailout (I want to say on the magnitude of $50B). Both the AIG and auto bailouts had similar characteristics where taxpayer position was structured to be worse than private investors. Last I checked, "billion" with a B was more money than "million" with an m. Where's the scandal and outrage? And if you're upset with the use of political power; how about the Bush Administration forcing taxpayer money onto the banks (Treasury Dept.) and both Treasury and Federal Reserve forcing Bank of America to merge with Merrill Lynch. This is a BS scandal. If it was a true scandal, there would've been outrage when the Solyndra loan was made. There was none from Congress. I did see questions raised on a website called "Green Tech Media", but none of that was picked up by Congress at the time. Of course our news media doesn't do such critical thinking because to raise such questions would appear to be bias' towards the Administration. It's far better to report on manufactured GOP outrage intended to foment more outrage. Oh, and what's the ultimate take-home message from this? If China can do it for cheaper, it's not even worth trying to compete with China (seriously, folks are mad because this type of item is manufactured more cheaply in China, therefore we flushed money down the potty). LOL spinning much?? Only a few can try and minimize a 500+ million loss as no big deal. How many people could that of helped?? .I wonder what your take would have been if this were Bush et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 There was a problem 9 days before the loan was made and it was stated that this company was hemorraging(sp) money. There was a problem when private investors were brought it after the 500mil was lost and tried to prop them up again. There is a problem when the law is ignored and the private investors get moves to the front of the line (see GM previously). To say its a BS scandal means your not really paying attention. Though your alternate points are not horrible, we should pay more attention to the B scandals than to the M scandals. though it seems we have plenty of political time on our hands this year to look at them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 LOL spinning much?? Only a few can try and minimize a 500+ million loss as no big deal. How many people could that of helped?? .I wonder what your take would have been if this were Bush et al.You sound like the right-wing radio folks who complain that Obama is politicizing everything and "all he's doing is making political speeches" oblivious to he fact that their sole purpose is to be political animals. My point still stands, "BILLIONS" were lost due to the bailout policies (which were initiated by Bush, but continued by Obama). GM and Chrysler were bailed out for the same reason Solyndra was, even if they couldn't compete with the overseas auto manufacturers, it was important to have this domestic capability (and domestic jobs). AIG was and still is completely bankrupt and those "losses" dwarf the auto bailout. The loss was simply laundered through the Federal Reserve (last I checked it was supposed to be a non-political independent arm of the government). I didn't even go into the fraud involved in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars which again is a number in the BILLIONS. GM/Chrysler/AIG (and most of the banks) were hemorraging(sp) money. Private investors were again given priority of the taxpayers (see AIG and their loan counterparties!). The law was almost certainly ignored in all these cases (I'm not so certain that the Federal Reserve AIG loan was Constitutional at all, nor the auto bailouts, nor the other money paid to the banks). Yet the GOP is willing to overlook these multiple $BILLION losses to go after the Obama administration in a scandal that Obama and Democrats owns 100% (especially since I'm sure the GOP is against the DOE loan program to start with). To be fair, its a great political move. Given the outrage it appears to be quite effective, especially since we have a media that rather than give some context is willing to simply release GOP press releases as news. It's a scandal all right; but no more scandalous than plenty of other things that have received zero, spotlight, attention, and outrage which dwarf the $547 million involved in this case. So why should I care about $547 million when I've witnessed and seen $Billions flushed down the toilet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 I'll add to the billions with a "B" the trillions with a "T" that were wasted in 2 illegal wars by Bush/Cheney and continued by Obama. And we are still wasting more billions with a "B" every day these wars continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Why are they illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Why are they illegal? We never declared war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 I'll add to the billions with a "B" the trillions with a "T" that were wasted in 2 illegal wars by Bush/Cheney and continued by Obama. And we are still wasting more billions with a "B" every day these wars continue. Do you really believe the more you tell a fallacy that the more it will be true? Look at the First Barbary war. Guess who was president, Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding father. Congress did not Formally Declare war then either. So precedent has been set. Please cite in the Constitution where the words "Formal Declaration of War" are used. You also might want to read up on Doe v. Bush and the ruling of the court. So all this illegal war talk is pure BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 We never declared war. So?....we are not at war we are using military force and the AUMF was voted on (except Libya,which is supposedly a UN thang ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Yes, this President is in over his head and can't do anything...except for saving the American car industry... except for passing the biggest piece of healthcare legislation since Medicare (just because YOU don't like it doesn't it mean it wasn't an accomplishment)... except for killing Osama bin Laden.... except for helping to take out Qaddafi while keeping us out of the middle of it... except for seeing the draw down in Iraq... except for quadrupling drone attacks on al Qaeda in Pakistan and crippling them and putting them on their last legs... except for ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell.... except for getting two more women onto the Supreme Court, including the Court's first Hispanic... except for overhauling the credit card consumer protections... except for keeping us out of a Second Great Depression and stalling BUSH's recession... Etc. Yup. He hasn't done ****. That argument is just stupid to me. It shows a person either isn't paying attention, had unrealistic expectations going in (ESPECIALLY from the Left), or just simply doesn't like the President/doesn't agree with him/wouldn't appreciate or respect anything he did period. ---------- Post added September-14th-2011 at 11:45 PM ---------- P.S. Please nominate Rick Perry. Obama's a lock to lose anyway. Might as well get the most conservative candidate in there. What did that post have to do with this thread or discussion? Obama and his administration fast tracked a loan to a company they knew wouldn't be able to get if they were scrutinized. More importantly, he modified the 'loan' to make sure that a person who contributed ~ $2 million to his campaign would benefit the most from this loan. That is corruption, period (maybe you should add this to your list). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossomo Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Wow!!You actually looked at all 4585 hits and made sure that none corresponded to what Obama proposed!! That my friends is a commitment to an honest debate. Peter - It was honest debate. I legitimately linked GovTrack search page and I still can't find Reid's Senate bill but did dig up Gohmert's bill. You'd think such major legislation would trend on the first few page results. Post the bill and I would have stfu. And someone has. Time to move on. ---------- Post added September-19th-2011 at 06:40 PM ---------- On the Solyndra tip. This was brought in the LATimes today. The White House faced mounting political complications as a second top fundraiser for President Obama was linked to a federal loan guarantee program that backed a now-bankrupt Silicon Valley solar energy company, and as two California lawmakers called for investigations of a state tax break granted to the firm. Steve Spinner, who helped monitor the Energy Department's issuance of $25 billion in government loan guarantees to renewable energy projects, was one of Obama's top fundraisers in 2008 and is raising money for the president's 2012 reelection campaign. Spinner did not have any role in the selection of applicants for the loan program and, in fact, was recused from the decision to grant a $535-million loan guarantee to Solyndra Inc. because his wife's law firm represented the company, administration officials said Friday. But Spinner's role as a top official in the Energy Department program, which had not been previously revealed, is likely to spur new inquiries into whether political influence played a role in the handling of the "green" energy fund. Am curious to see how this washes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Peter - It was honest debate. I legitimately linked GovTrack search page and I still can't find Reid's Senate bill but did dig up Gohmert's bill. You'd think such major legislation would trend on the first few page results. Post the bill and I would have stfu. And someone has. Time to move on. You said the bill was NOT listed. Not that you couldn't find evidence of it. The only way to know that was to go through all ~4800 hits or so. There is absolutely NO reason to believe that there is any link between the order of the legislation and the importance of the legislation. The site makes no claim about returning results based on trending, importance, or the date by which legislation was introduced. Your post was garbage and made a claim that was garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossomo Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 You said the bill was NOT listed. Not that you couldn't find evidence of it. ... your post was garbage and made a claim that was garbage. Edit: I didn't see it. Conjecture won't win you points. Point me to the bill which someone did and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 From the CT- The Solyndra scandal cost at least a half-billion public dollars. It is plaguing President Barack Obama. And it's being billed as a Washington story. But back in Obama's political hometown, those of us familiar with the Chicago Way can see something else in Solyndra — something that the Washington crowd calls "optics." In fact, it's not just a Washington saga — it has all the elements of a Chicago City Hall story, except with more zeros. Obama fundraiser linked to loan program that aided Solyndra Story: Obama fundraiser linked to loan program that aided Solyndra The FBI is investigating what happened with Solyndra, a solar panel company that got a $535 million government-backed loan with the help of the Obama White House over the objections of federal budget analysts. continues.....http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-0918-20110918,0,3951633.column?page=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossomo Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 "mossomo said: See the thing is, the Democrat party has become so socialist that the party would call JFK a conservative now a days." This is laughable. From Wikipedia, but it's all sourced... Amongst the legislation passed by Congress during the Kennedy administration. ... I was having some fun there but there's this. Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13 aEdXrfIMdiU&feature=player_embedded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Am curious to see how this washes out. I am too. The more I read, the worse it looks. The GOP has been screaming "corruption" and "scandal!" every day since the minute Obama came into office. Looks like they may finally have stumbled on to a real scandal with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 After living through the bailouts, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that a $537M loan guarantee is "crony capitalism", yet the GOP would have me believe it is. But there's no conflict of interest in having the Treasury Secretary make deals and bailouts that favor his former firm, Goldman Sachs? *That's* not crony capitalism? So yes, there may have been some "crony capitalism" here, maybe not even "may", there was some. But is it big enough to get this worked up over? No freakin' way. Of course this could be what Obama gets for not going after the Bush administration and cleaning house so to speak in early 2009. I just don't see this as anything other than true scandal being milked for all its worth, especially since GOP is not fond of this type of loan guarantee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Edit: I didn't see it. Conjecture won't win you points. Point me to the bill which someone did and move on. I agree, but that's exactly what you did. But not only was your post complete conjecture (conjecture that the bill wasn't in the database and one of the more than 4,500 hits), it was conjecture stated as a fact. That the bill was NOT in the database. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossomo Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 So it begins. The new era of transparency has arrived. Solyndra LLC's chief executive and chief financial officer will invoke their Fifth Amendment rights and decline to answer any questions put to them at a Congressional hearing on Friday, according to letters from their attorneys obtained by Reuters. What's to hide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Are you saying that a Soylindra exec invoking the 5th somehow implicates Obama's efforts at government transparency? Even if he is guilty as hell, even if the whole deal is dirty, a witness invoking the 5th before Congress has nothing to do with government transparency. Obama couldn't make a private citizen testify even if he wanted to. Find better talking points, ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucaro Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I was having some fun there but there's this.Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13 aEdXrfIMdiU&feature=player_embedded He cut the tax rate from around 90% (from the depression era) to around 70% for the top earners. Bad example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 So it begins. The new era of transparency has arrived.Solyndra LLC's chief executive and chief financial officer will invoke their Fifth Amendment rights and decline to answer any questions put to them at a Congressional hearing on Friday, according to letters from their attorneys obtained by Reuters. What's to hide? Last I heard, the 5th Amendment was part of the Constitution. Don't we have that right? Don't Republicans also take the 5th? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossomo Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 He cut the tax rate from around 90% Which is why I stress a NEED for people to have skin in the game. 90 freaking percent. You'd never tax yourself 90%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucaro Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Which is why I stress a NEED for people to have skin in the game. 90 freaking percent. You'd never tax yourself 90%. Read the tax thread, it has been extensively proven that the poor and lower middle class have more skin in the game than anyone, they pay (by far) the largest percentage of their income. I am not going to rehash it here. Regardless, that had nothing to do with the post, no tax should ever be that high and Kennedy was bringing tax levels down from great depression levels (which his republican predecesor had not done which also means nothing, diff time, diff structure, not applicable) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Are you saying that a Soylindra exec invoking the 5th somehow implicates Obama's efforts at government transparency?Even if he is guilty as hell, even if the whole deal is dirty, a witness invoking the 5th before Congress has nothing to do with government transparency. Obama couldn't make a private citizen testify even if he wanted to. Find better talking points, ok? Dick Cheney was tied over and over again to Haliburton. This is no different. And similarly, it wont mean anything to anyone except the hyper partisans on the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Read the tax thread, it has been extensively proven that the poor and lower middle class have more skin in the game than anyone, they pay (by far) the largest percentage of their income. I am not going to rehash it here. Regardless, that had nothing to do with the post, no tax should ever be that high and Kennedy was bringing tax levels down from great depression levels (which his republican predecesor had not done which also means nothing, diff time, diff structure, not applicable) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obama-taxes-and-the-buffett-rule/2011/09/20/gIQAXdd0iK_blog.html?hpid=z3 When you add up all of the various taxes, and look at the effective tax rates, it is clear the tax system is already pretty progressive. Everyone pays some tax, even those who pay no federal income taxes, and the wealthiest pay a larger percentage share of taxes. Here’s the effective tax rate for all of the groups, according to the CBO: Lowest quintile (23.4 million taxpayers), zero to $18,900: 4.3 percent Second lowest quintile (22.4 million), $18,900-$32,100: 10.2 percent Middle quintile (22.9 million), $32,100-$47,400: 14.2 percent Fourth quintile (23 million), $47,400-$71,200: 17.6 percent Highest quintile (23.6 million), above $71,200: 25.8 percent Top 10 percent (12 million), minimum income of $98,100: 27.5 percent Top 5 percent (5.9 million), minimum income of $134,400: 29 percent Top 1 percent (1.1 million), minimum income of $332,300: 31.2 percent ---------------------------------------------------------- I'm glad you aren't going to rehash it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.