|
|
|
|
|
Topic: Salute to NASCAR Fans
|
Email this topic to a friend |
Subscribe to this Topic
| Report this Topic to Moderator
|
|
Page 6 of 8 of 155 replies
|
|
|
|
November 27, 2011 at
04:52:22 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
11/30/2004
|
|
Posts:
|
1065
|
|
|
This message was edited on
November 27, 2011 at
04:57:54 PM by sprintcarfanatic
And just how many congressmen got kickbacks for them so called bailouts & are they Republican or demorcrat ? Anybody have a list who did not give the money back & who did it go to. Now if they would have tallied the money they gave Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Gm, Chrysler & Anybody else under the sun & gave that money to people that needed it to purchase a home & a car like say ME, I would've sold my home & truck for half price just to help out someone else. Can I sue the Government for misrepresentation. LOL.
|
|
|
|
November 27, 2011 at
05:02:04 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
01/02/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
5252
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: Sprinter 79 on November 27 2011 at 04:33:41 PM
If that is true then I guess that all American auto makers are crap. Guess I will be looking at foreign cars only, thanks for the heads up! (sarcams) Hey, were they loans to Ford, or were they give aways? Oh, you already said, they were loans. When you get a figure regarding how much Ford actually PAID BACK, perhaps I will lend some weight to your argument. And who was the first company to admit to declining numbers????? Ford. And who bashed Ford in their advertisements until they had to eat crow for being worse off?????? GM. Sorry there, but the government has been giving away money to auto manufacturers for a while in an effort to get CLEAN cars. The government has been involved in the push for Green cars for a while. If Ford got an incentive to build Green cars to fit into the push to force american buyers to drive them, so be it. The only company to really have any success what so ever in the Green car market so far has been Toyota. So I ask you, Mr. AMERICA Rules, wouldn't you want your government involved in trying to compete with foreign auto makers? Lord knows that he Big 3 are helpless otherwise. You can not throw a figure out there that is indicative of the actions of the federal government to force it's people to as the government pleases and expect me to be surprised. GM & Chrysler SUCK, and should have gone belly up. That is how the system is supposed to work. Maybe Ford did get a kick back, but so did GM and chrysler Before the bail out. Hell, Chrysler has been a thorn in the side of tax payers for decades!!!! So it is what it is. Like I said, once Toyota and or Honda are making a truck that is capable of doing what I need them to do, I will not buy American. But since I am in a position to have to, I will choose the lesser of the two evils. My Fords have been flawless in operation.
|
"
| Thursday, 25 June 2009 10:00 |
 Ford Motor Company was supposed to be the only major U.S. automaker not in need of a bailout, but this week Ford accepted a $5.9 billion loan subsidy under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The EISA loan is designed to help the auto industry by supporting “capital investments in facilities designed to produce vehicles with greater fuel efficiency and reduced emissions.”
It's easy to find.
|
Half the lies they tell about me aren't true.
|
|
|
|
|
November 27, 2011 at
05:15:26 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
01/02/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
5252
|
|
|
This message was edited on
November 27, 2011 at
05:17:08 PM by BIGFISH
Want to save the government some money? Very few brave "extremists" from either party have mentioned how much we could save by not invading & occupying all these countries. Why do we need bases in Europe, Japan, even CUBA??!!??
We need troops in Germany to protect them from Stalin, right.
Oh man wait until the reds start spinning how we want to reduce the money spent for "defence", and as far as our 3rd "war" in Lybya is concerened, we had more people killed in our "police action" in Panama, but we got our man, Noriega......"The initial attack took place in darkness on the morning of December 20 and was focused primarily on Noriega's headquarters in Panama City. U.S. forces quickly overcame most organized resistance, but in the following days numerous Panamanian soldiers and civilians looted shops in Panama City and Colón, and some 2,000 U.S. reinforcements were flown in to help establish order. The number of Panamanians killed in the operation was estimated at 200-300 combatants (soldiers and paramilitaries) and some 300 civilians; 23 U.S. soldiers also were killed. Hundreds from both nations were wounded."
Half the lies they tell about me aren't true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
November 27, 2011 at
05:30:38 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
12/05/2010
|
|
Posts:
|
840
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: BIGFISH on November 27 2011 at 05:02:04 PM
"
| Thursday, 25 June 2009 10:00 |
Ford Motor Company was supposed to be the only major U.S. automaker not in need of a bailout, but this week Ford accepted a $5.9 billion loan subsidy under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The EISA loan is designed to help the auto industry by supporting “capital investments in facilities designed to produce vehicles with greater fuel efficiency and reduced emissions.”
It's easy to find.
|
|
And your point is????
Do you REALLY think that it is in the best interest of the automakers to produce a car that very few people are going to buy? The US government has been pushing for the production of Reduced Emissions cars since the Clinton era. This is exactly the same thing as the government paying you in the form of a tax write off to purchase and drive a reduced emissions car. Just like they will pay you to put up solar panels, wind mills, and anything else that they think will better their interests. They also should not have been running fannie or freddy, but they are not very smart are they? Let me ask you this. If you owned a company, and the government wanted you to spend millions or billions of dollars to produce a product that you knew you could not sell, and they offered you the money to subsidize the project, that you know is not going to be successful, would you take the money? Ford did not have any problems financially in producing their product, a product by the way people are buying, but they were not in a position to be able to afford to produce cars that the government is forcing them to produce. This government, all of them, feel that they can bully about any company to do as they please. Here is the catch, if I were being forced to build products that won't sell to satisfy some elitist government officials, and they were dumb enough to pay for it, I would take it. But they were solvent with their own projects, which is all that you can ask of a company. Take care of your own business. Maybe we should be upset with the government for forcing companies to build crap that we won't buy!!!!!!!!! There is a huge difference between the government forcing you to build something and flying your own ship into the dirt. GM & Chrysler would not have been able to support their own product!
If you are going to try and make a point, it ought to be relevant to the conversation!!!!
The EISA loan is designed to help the auto industry by supporting “capital investments in facilities designed (((((((((((((to produce vehicles with greater fuel efficiency and reduced emissions.”)))))))))))))))))))
What part of this do you not understand????
Never hit stationary objects!
|
|
|
|
|
November 27, 2011 at
05:45:46 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
01/02/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
5252
|
|
|
|
LOL, Ford choose to take this money, and trust me, it didn't all going into retooling. My overall point is that Ford, just like the rest of them had their hand out for government money, and they took billions my friend, billions..... Now if you choose to go on a rant about what they did with all that money, fine.
Half the lies they tell about me aren't true.
|
|
|
|
|
November 27, 2011 at
06:45:38 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
12/05/2010
|
|
Posts:
|
840
|
|
|
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/ford_motor_company/index.html
The current history of Ford Motors. It looks like they saw the writing on the wall and prepared for the downturn. They also leveraged the Blue Oval as a means to acquire the loan money that they received and restructured before the federal government had to get involved. Like going to the bank and taking a loan to stimulate and balance your bank books. Ford managed to stay afloat. What was GM's excuse?
Never hit stationary objects!
|
|
|
1.jpg)
|
|
|
November 27, 2011 at
06:49:05 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
10/01/2010
|
|
Posts:
|
208
|
|
|
|
Hey, this is a good ol war you guys got going, ~ ~ ~ <:-)
~ ~ ~ I'm sure glad I don't get into wars, ~ ~ ~ this one even has Noriega & Stalin in it <:-)
~ ~ ~ Viva Mehico ! ! !
.... I stand for
justice, justice for ALL ~ ~ ~ 360...
~ ~ ~ You Can't Scam A Scammer ! ! !
|
|
|
|
November 27, 2011 at
07:58:19 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
09/12/2008
|
|
Posts:
|
2511
|
|
|
This message was edited on
November 27, 2011 at
08:27:00 PM by buzz rightrear
Reply to:
Posted By: revjimk on November 27 2011 at 04:39:05 PM
"the electric cars are a joke as well as most of the fuel to get the electricity comes from coal and natural gas" Can't argue with that one...... maybe hybrids would help if they were affordable. I like more research on cellulose based ethanol, uses waste products, not potential food crops which drives up worldwide food prices.
Whats methanol made from?
|
most methanol is made from natural gas.
by the way, we have a lot of natural gas in this country. im guessing you can make methanol for at least the same price as ethanol without dipping into our corn based products.can probably make it for less as gasohol has been around for a long time.
the thing is the environmentalists don't like methanol.
methanol as a fuel source replacement for gas is no better than ethanol in my opinion, other than it doesn't dip into the corn basket.
to indy and beyond!!
|
|
|
|
|
November 27, 2011 at
08:10:36 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
09/12/2008
|
|
Posts:
|
2511
|
|
|
This message was edited on
November 27, 2011 at
08:35:29 PM by buzz rightrear
Reply to:
Posted By: BIGFISH on November 27 2011 at 05:45:46 PM
LOL, Ford choose to take this money, and trust me, it didn't all going into retooling. My overall point is that Ford, just like the rest of them had their hand out for government money, and they took billions my friend, billions..... Now if you choose to go on a rant about what they did with all that money, fine.
|
ford chose to take the money. HAHAHA!!! like they had a choice.
just like some of the banks that the government told to take money who really didn't want it. so the banks took the money. the government told them they couldn't have some banks taking money and some banks not because then people might get scared and think some banks were going to fail and some weren't. sounds stupid, but it is true. the government said they didn't want people drawing a conclusion there were good banks and a bad banks. so they all had to take money. then when they found out the terms and how the government was trying to tell them they had a say in how their business was run because the banks took the money, the banks tried to give the money back. the government wouldn't take it. it took a while for those banks that were not in trouble but were forced to take money to get the money returned and the government off their back.
you are really trying to equate the acceptance of a loan that the government gives you because it is creating more expense to you by having you do development on a car THEY want you to make to HAVING to go through government controlled BK?
besides this loan can't be so secret if you know about it. also it is old news and a lot of people including me heard the car companies took development loans for "green" projects.
to indy and beyond!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November 27, 2011 at
08:24:39 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
09/12/2008
|
|
Posts:
|
2511
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: Mr Cantina on November 27 2011 at 06:49:05 PM
Hey, this is a good ol war you guys got going, ~ ~ ~ <:-)
~ ~ ~ I'm sure glad I don't get into wars, ~ ~ ~ this one even has Noriega & Stalin in it <:-)
~ ~ ~ Viva Mehico ! ! !
|
it is not much of a war when you can defuse the other sides bombs and throw them back at them.
like most people on the progressive side, they only give you part of the story and leave it wide open to those who can add the information to refute it and bring reality to light. there really are some good points for progressives to make, but most of the time they can't offer them up. why? because most of the time they don't know the whole story. instead they go for the superficial stuff that really doesn't support their point of view when you add in the parts they leave out.
kind of like when they tell you they had a great night racing and finished fifth in the main event. then you find there were only five cars in it. hey fifth sounds great, but last is last. they may not be lying, but they sure as heck aren't giving you the whole story.
to indy and beyond!!
|
|
|
|
|
November 28, 2011 at
11:25:44 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
10/01/2010
|
|
Posts:
|
208
|
|
|
This message was edited on
November 28, 2011 at
11:27:26 AM by Mr Cantina
Reply to:
Posted By: buzz rightrear on November 27 2011 at 08:24:39 PM
it is not much of a war when you can defuse the other sides bombs and throw them back at them.
like most people on the progressive side, they only give you part of the story and leave it wide open to those who can add the information to refute it and bring reality to light. there really are some good points for progressives to make, but most of the time they can't offer them up. why? because most of the time they don't know the whole story. instead they go for the superficial stuff that really doesn't support their point of view when you add in the parts they leave out.
kind of like when they tell you they had a great night racing and finished fifth in the main event. then you find there were only five cars in it. hey fifth sounds great, but last is last. they may not be lying, but they sure as heck aren't giving you the whole story.
|
You did a real ! ! ! good job of ~ ~ ~ "defusing & bomb throwing" ~ ~ ~ good buddy <:-)
360, ~ ~ ~ Viva Mehico ! <:-)
.... I stand for
justice, justice for ALL ~ ~ ~ 360...
~ ~ ~ You Can't Scam A Scammer ! ! !
|
|
|
|
|
November 28, 2011 at
12:54:41 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
01/02/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
5252
|
|
|
This message was edited on
November 28, 2011 at
06:28:42 PM by BIGFISH
Reply to:
Posted By: buzz rightrear on November 27 2011 at 08:10:36 PM
ford chose to take the money. HAHAHA!!! like they had a choice.
just like some of the banks that the government told to take money who really didn't want it. so the banks took the money. the government told them they couldn't have some banks taking money and some banks not because then people might get scared and think some banks were going to fail and some weren't. sounds stupid, but it is true. the government said they didn't want people drawing a conclusion there were good banks and a bad banks. so they all had to take money. then when they found out the terms and how the government was trying to tell them they had a say in how their business was run because the banks took the money, the banks tried to give the money back. the government wouldn't take it. it took a while for those banks that were not in trouble but were forced to take money to get the money returned and the government off their back.
you are really trying to equate the acceptance of a loan that the government gives you because it is creating more expense to you by having you do development on a car THEY want you to make to HAVING to go through government controlled BK?
besides this loan can't be so secret if you know about it. also it is old news and a lot of people including me heard the car companies took development loans for "green" projects.
|
Just a bunch of jabbering, and not one fact.... You didn't even get it fired up, not alone finish the race.
SHOW ME WHERE "the government said they didn't want people drawing a conclusion there were good banks and a bad banks" Sheeez, do you just make stuff up as you go, or what?
Fact is they gave away trillions of dollars to the banks that we didn't even know about. Draw a conclusion with that!
Fed lent banks nearly $8 trillion during crisis, report showsWhile the nation's largest banks were publicly reassuring nervous investors of their stability during the height of the financial crisis, they were also quietly approaching the Federal Reserve, hat in hand. The total price tag: $7.77 trillion, many times the amount of the better-known TARP bailout.
The magnitude of the government's assistance to struggling banks allowed them to grow even bigger and continue paying executives billions in compensation, a report in Bloomberg Markets January issue said Monday.
A win in court against a group representing the banks and a FOIA request filed by Bloomberg LP revealed the extent of the central bank's largesse — as well as the $13 billion in profits banks earned from those bailouts. The so called "big six" — JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — accounted for $4.8 billion of that total — nearly a quarter of their net income during that time.
Those borrowed trillions were a deeply-buried secret. It appears that even high-ranking Fed officials didn't know about the scale of the handouts. According to Bloomberg, then-president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Gary H. Stern “wasn’t aware of the magnitude,” and unnamed sources say that even top aides to Treasury Department head Henry Paulson were kept in the dark.
It's kind of a good idea to have guidelines for Banks is the common thought, but you don't think so? LOL (tell them what to do in your words) ..http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html
Half the lies they tell about me aren't true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November 28, 2011 at
02:29:16 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
09/12/2008
|
|
Posts:
|
2511
|
|
|
This message was edited on
November 28, 2011 at
02:48:33 PM by buzz rightrear
Reply to:
Posted By: BIGFISH on November 28 2011 at 12:54:41 PM
Just a bunch of jabbering, and not one fact.... You didn't even get it fired up, not alone finish the race.
SHOW ME WHERE "the government said they didn't want people drawing a conclusion there were good banks and a bad banks" Sheeez, do you just make stuff up as you go, or what?
Fact is they gave away trillions of dollars to the banks that we didn't even know about. Draw a conclusion with that!
Fed lent banks nearly $8 trillion during crisis, report showsWhile the nation's largest banks were publicly reassuring nervous investors of their stability during the height of the financial crisis, they were also quietly approaching the Federal Reserve, hat in hand. The total price tag: $7.77 trillion, many times the amount of the better-known TARP bailout.
The magnitude of the government's assistance to struggling banks allowed them to grow even bigger and continue paying executives billions in compensation, a report in Bloomberg Markets January issue said Monday.
A win in court against a group representing the banks and a FOIA request filed by Bloomberg LP revealed the extent of the central bank's largesse — as well as the $13 billion in profits banks earned from those bailouts. The so called "big six" — JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — accounted for $4.8 billion of that total — nearly a quarter of their net income during that time.
Those borrowed trillions were a deeply-buried secret. It appears that even high-ranking Fed officials didn't know about the scale of the handouts. According to Bloomberg, then-president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Gary H. Stern “wasn’t aware of the magnitude,” and unnamed sources say that even top aides to Treasury Department head Henry Paulson were kept in the dark.
It's kind of a good idea to have guidelines for Banks is the common thought, but you don't think so? LOL (tell them what to do in your words) ..http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html
|
you can read this link, it is a forum, a democratic forum, but it talks about why some banks were forced to take money and also that there was the thought that there would be a stigma attached to some banks who didn't take loans and there might be a run on banks if the public thought there were good banks and bad banks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5399043#5399063
here is a line in one of the posts that makes reference to what i was talking about:
In the beginning, banks that were invited to participate were accepting funds even if they didn't need them, becuase they felt there would be a "stigma" that they were "not well capitalized" and that banks supported by government money would be decreed "well capitalized."
i know it is not an article, but it lets you know i didn't just make crap up. and it comes from a democratic site. so are you going to refer to this person as making stuff up as they go along?
it is known that some banks that didn't want or need money took it at the governments insistence. part of that insistence was to not created a condition were people started taking money out of banks they thought were "bad" because they weren't backed by the government.
as for facts, you wouldn't know the facts if they hit you in the face. you have shown to be minimally informed. there is more to the story sometimes than you or are aware of. there is more to things than i am aware of.
you can refute my info if you can, but i really don't like being accused of being a liar and a fabricator.
i have not accused you of being a liar or a fabricator, i just provide info to refute your case or bring more facts into light.
you have not been able to refute anything i have submitted, you have only been able to accuse me of being a fabricator because you are not informed enough on the subject to debate it in depth.
also you never address the issue that ford taking a loan that amounts to some funding for government initiated research and development is different from the other auto companies taking money to stay in business and is not a "bail out". so why did you avoid that? that was the jist of the post. you are avoiding the issue.
to indy and beyond!!
|
|
|
|
|
November 28, 2011 at
03:46:31 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
09/14/2010
|
|
Posts:
|
7904
|
|
|
|
"With the unions ripping off the auto makers..."
So who actually produces the vehicles they sell? Every penny of profit comes from selling the products produced by the workers.
I don't begrudge any factory hand their pension, it was a negotiated contract & companies are obligated to pay. What I do begrudge are the fortunes made by Wall St. scam artists. Nowadays they invest in abstract BS like derivatives & credit default swaps, rather than producing goods & services that actually put people to work, and are useful . Ever eat a derivative? Drive one?
|
|
|
|
|
November 28, 2011 at
05:57:16 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
01/02/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
5252
|
|
|
This message was edited on
November 28, 2011 at
06:34:17 PM by BIGFISH
you can read this link, it is a forum, a democratic forum, but it talks about why some banks were forced to take money and also that there was the thought that there would be a stigma attached to some banks who didn't take loans and there might be a run on banks if the public thought there were good banks and bad banks.
It's just talk Buzz, don't you know the difference between talk and facts....... The deal is Bush and Co not only gave away our money, but he gave it away without any restrictions or accountability, but when Obama told them that not only did they have to be accountable, they couldn't just give it to their top dogs, ie themselves... "New restrictions on executive compensation and dividend payouts" it wasn't so attractive any longer. Though this guy from Signature bank mentioned "stigma", anyone can see that the restrictions put in place was the real reason it was handed back, not some stigma... "He said (right after stigma LOL) he was worried that the conditions on the aid could hurt the way he paid bankers and sales representatives". Again, themselves... They were never forced by anyone to take money. There is still a debate (talk) as whether there's more of a sigma if you didn't take, compared to if you did take. Again not facts, just talk.
"What was billed as a program intended to help healthy banks increase lending and swallow up troubled rivals widened to include a number of struggling banks. New restrictions on executive compensation and dividend payouts made such aid less palatable to bank managers". ...Still no facts that anyone was "forced" to take anything buzz, just talk. Are you a liar? I don't remember calling you a liar. Misinformed for sure though, and then cherry picking that. LOL Now as far as Ford is concerned... Like I said, buy a Ford and then trade it in for something else. AGAIN, I STAND BY THIS. "Ford choose to take this money, and trust me, it didn't all going into retooling. My overall point is that Ford, just like the rest of them had their hand out for government money, and they took billions my friend, billions..... Now if you choose to go on a rant about what they did with all that money, fine"...I also asked, "So what do you think, should Bush have been giving that kind of money to Ford knowing,(or didn't he) the trouble our economy was in and with the debt was that he's already ran up. Do you think Ford was accountable for it? You need to relax son, it's not good for your heath, just like watching Fox news isn't. You do watch Fox, don't you? Show me where I said it was a good idea for Bush to give Ford that money. No I don't think it was a bailout per se, a gift maybe..LOL.. Sorry but your going to have to have to dance by yourself on this, I'm through.. what kind of music do you like again?
Half the lies they tell about me aren't true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November 28, 2011 at
06:38:40 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
09/12/2008
|
|
Posts:
|
2511
|
|
|
This message was edited on
November 28, 2011 at
06:48:02 PM by buzz rightrear
Reply to:
Posted By: BIGFISH on November 28 2011 at 05:57:16 PM
you can read this link, it is a forum, a democratic forum, but it talks about why some banks were forced to take money and also that there was the thought that there would be a stigma attached to some banks who didn't take loans and there might be a run on banks if the public thought there were good banks and bad banks.
It's just talk Buzz, don't you know the difference between talk and facts....... The deal is Bush and Co not only gave away our money, but he gave it away without any restrictions or accountability, but when Obama told them that not only did they have to be accountable, they couldn't just give it to their top dogs, ie themselves... "New restrictions on executive compensation and dividend payouts" it wasn't so attractive any longer. Though this guy from Signature bank mentioned "stigma", anyone can see that the restrictions put in place was the real reason it was handed back, not some stigma... "He said (right after stigma LOL) he was worried that the conditions on the aid could hurt the way he paid bankers and sales representatives". Again, themselves... They were never forced by anyone to take money. There is still a debate (talk) as whether there's more of a sigma if you didn't take, compared to if you did take. Again not facts, just talk.
"What was billed as a program intended to help healthy banks increase lending and swallow up troubled rivals widened to include a number of struggling banks. New restrictions on executive compensation and dividend payouts made such aid less palatable to bank managers". ...Still no facts that anyone was "forced" to take anything buzz, just talk. Are you a liar? I don't remember calling you a liar. Misinformed for sure though, and then cherry picking that. LOL Now as far as Ford is concerned... Like I said, buy a Ford and then trade it in for something else. AGAIN, I STAND BY THIS. "Ford choose to take this money, and trust me, it didn't all going into retooling. My overall point is that Ford, just like the rest of them had their hand out for government money, and they took billions my friend, billions..... Now if you choose to go on a rant about what they did with all that money, fine"...I also asked, "So what do you think, should Bush have been giving that kind of money to Ford knowing,(or didn't he) the trouble our economy was in and with the debt was that he's already ran up. Do you think Ford was accountable for it? You need to relax son, it's not good for your heath, just like watching Fox news isn't. You do watch Fox, don't you? Show me where I said it was a good idea for Bush to give Ford that money. No I don't think it was a bailout per se, a gift maybe..LOL.. Sorry but your going to have to have to dance by yourself on this, I'm through.. what kind of music do you like again?
|
you can take it or leave it. the thing is just because you haven't heard about something doesn't make it not true. i told you some banks that didn't want or need the money took it because they were told there might be a stigma attatched to them if they didn't. you told me i was making things up as i went along. i showed you i wasn't. also i don't recall saying it wasn't a good idea for bush to give ford money. i just said that taking some money to offset the cost of doing research and devolopment on a project requested by the government wasn't the same as taking bail out money. of course banks that didn't need the money but were advised to take it wanted to give it back after it became apparent the only reason they were pushed by the government to take the money was because the government wanted to tack on conditions that were never agreed to in the first place. if i make an agreement with you and then you later want to change that agreement to make it more favorable to you, i might not like it. the agreement was altered after the fact and some banks didn't want to be a part of it. still the government would not let them repay the money right away. why do you think that was? because the government wanted to control their pay structure.
Reports from the first round of banking bailouts cited the bank executives were held up in a room and the government would not release them until they agreed to take TARP money. One healthy bank, who claimed they didn't need the money because they didn't make bad loans, was Wells Fargo.
to indy and beyond!!
|
|
|
|
|
November 28, 2011 at
06:53:06 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
01/02/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
5252
|
|
|
This message was edited on
November 28, 2011 at
07:01:34 PM by BIGFISH
Reply to:
Posted By: buzz rightrear on November 28 2011 at 06:38:40 PM
you can take it or leave it. the thing is just because you haven't heard about something doesn't make it not true. i told you some banks that didn't want or need the money took it because they were told there might be a stigma attatched to them if they didn't. you told me i was making things up as i went along. i showed you i wasn't. also i don't recall saying it wasn't a good idea for bush to give ford money. i just said that taking some money to offset the cost of doing research and devolopment on a project requested by the government wasn't the same as taking bail out money. of course banks that didn't need the money but were advised to take it wanted to give it back after it became apparent the only reason they were pushed by the government to take the money was because the government wanted to tack on conditions that were never agreed to in the first place. if i make an agreement with you and then you later want to change that agreement to make it more favorable to you, i might not like it. the agreement was altered after the fact and some banks didn't want to be a part of it. still the government would not let them repay the money right away. why do you think that was? because the government wanted to control their pay structure.
Reports from the first round of banking bailouts cited the bank executives were held up in a room and the government would not release them until they agreed to take TARP money. One healthy bank, who claimed they didn't need the money because they didn't make bad loans, was Wells Fargo. |
LOL, I would first like to point out that this little form type site is called Bungalow Bill's Conservative Wisdom, (see below) and there has been no confirmation of anyone being held or locked in a room. Also, it's funny how they didn't complain until what they did with the money backfired on them. It's a bad deal any way you look at it.
The bottom line is that banks have helped themself, and to hell with the American public.
Half the lies they tell about me aren't true.
|
|
|
|
|
November 28, 2011 at
06:54:19 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
10/01/2010
|
|
Posts:
|
208
|
|
|
This message was edited on
November 28, 2011 at
06:58:14 PM by Mr Cantina
In as much as Mr. Stalin has been mentioned in this here beef, ~ ~ ~ I thought this report would be of interest, <:-) ~ ~ ~
Josef Stalin's daughter dies at 85, ~ ~ ~
Lana Peters, the only daughter of the infamous Soviet dictator died of colon cancer last week, 22 Nov. in Wisconsin where she lived off and on after becoming a US citizen,
360, ``` Viva Mehico <:-)
.... I stand for
justice, justice for ALL ~ ~ ~ 360...
~ ~ ~ You Can't Scam A Scammer ! ! !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November 28, 2011 at
07:45:00 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
09/12/2008
|
|
Posts:
|
2511
|
|
|
This message was edited on
November 28, 2011 at
09:02:07 PM by buzz rightrear
Reply to:
Posted By: BIGFISH on November 28 2011 at 06:53:06 PM
LOL, I would first like to point out that this little form type site is called Bungalow Bill's Conservative Wisdom, (see below) and there has been no confirmation of anyone being held or locked in a room. Also, it's funny how they didn't complain until what they did with the money backfired on them. It's a bad deal any way you look at it.
The bottom line is that banks have helped themself, and to hell with the American public. |
weren't you posting stuff from the daliy KOS?
i don't know what connection some of these site have. i just searched for banks that took stimulus that didn't need it. also their was a quote direct from the CEO of wells fargo stating what happened. i guess he just said a bunch of crap to make hannity and drudge and all happy.
you can bury your head in the sand all you want, wait a minute, you don't have to bury your head in the sand to be blind.
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/11/25/banks-forced-to-take-bailout/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
NEW YORK - The chief executives of the country's nine largest banks had no choice but to accept capital infusions from the Treasury Department in October, government documents released Wednesday have confirmed.
Obtained and released by Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation, the documents reveal "talking points" used by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the Oct. 13 meeting between federal officials and the executives that stressed the investments would be required "in any circumstance," whether the banks found them appealing or not.
http://articles.boston.com/2009-05-15/business/29261648_1_banks-new-york-mellon-sheila-bair
Documents Reveal How Paulson Forced Banks To Take TARP Cashhttp://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-05-13/wall_street/29994241_1_scribd-bank-documents
to indy and beyond!!
|
|
|
|
|
November 28, 2011 at
08:18:07 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
12/05/2010
|
|
Posts:
|
840
|
|
|
I for one believe that these issues were forced by the federal government. Mr. Obama made a TON of promises on the campaign trail that he knew he could not live up to. Coming from Illinois, where Chicago politics is the norm, I fully believe that his administration would make an effort to strong arm his way into controlling as much as he possibly could. Hell, that is the way things are done here in good old corrupt Illinois. Obama was taught how to run the show in a state that has put 4 governors in prison in the last 35 years.
Never hit stationary objects!
|
|
|
|
