New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Did the Obama Bank Bailouts work?

EliteMind

Council Member
YES!. they did...but not in the sense you're thinking. they didn't help the taxpayer nope, BUT they did help the Banks recoup billions of dollars that WE paid them to keep from putting your credit cards on the black list, and also to help move us all to a cashless society with the exit of so much liquidity in the Bailouts.

*Being that America is a Consumer Economy, it would only make sense to bailout the consumer, but that's not the Change we should believe in.

*The Change we should believe in is Socialism with a tinge of Facist Tyranny. no longer a Democratic Republic.

So yes, the Obama Bank Bailouts did exactly what they were designed to do...bankrupt America and sack the dollar.

And now you know.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Great. then we can us the People....since they are the only ones Barack Obama DIDN'T Bail out.

Start threre.
You seem to've dodged my point. From my perspective anyway, Obama did what was best for all, even as your "the People" would never appreciate it.

All that "wealth" that disappeared in the context of the Li'l Georgiean recession?? It was all "on paper" wealth. The banksters - however evil they may be - were the only ones in a position to recreate that on-paper wealth.

The easy and populist-pleasing alternative would've been to throw 'em all in jail at the outset. The much harder alternative was to bite the bullet and send them back to recover that wealth.
 

EliteMind

Council Member
You seem to've dodged my point. From my perspective anyway, Obama did what was best for all, even as your "the People" would never appreciate it.

All that "wealth" that disappeared in the context of the Li'l Georgiean recession?? It was all "on paper" wealth. The banksters - however evil they may be - were the only ones in a position to recreate that on-paper wealth.

The easy and populist-pleasing alternative would've been to throw 'em all in jail at the outset. The much harder alternative was to bite the bullet and send them back to recover that wealth.
You seem to miss MY point. Obama's BEST option would have been to bail out the People, since America is a consumer economy. You bail out the ones that are spending the money(consumers) that are trapped in high interest and can't spend anymore.

*You don't bailout the Banks and leave the people(consumers) hanging still with the high interest debt and STILL can't spend. that's insane and criminal.

*You alleviate that debt and wipe it clean off the books so they can spend again, OR you send money to them so they can pay the debts down to the creditors.

What Obama effectively did was a HUGE Money swap to move us closer to a cash-LESS society. because now the Banks books are cleaned up, the people are still in debt, so the Banks and try any tactic they want going forward to secure payments from consumers, and that could come in various forms, one of which is not offer cash advances anymore.

in a nutshell, the Bank Bailouts was the WORST Policital decision Obama ever made. And he wasn't in office a month.
 

Wahbooz

Governor
I hope you are well aware that it was Bush who began the bank bailouts.


And what brought on much of this? The recinding of Glass/Steagall, and it's replacement by Gramm/Leach/Bliley, as well as Bush calling for more lenient loaning on home mortgages. Listen to Bush calling on Fannie and Freddie to back more low income loans.


Yes, Obama continued it, and his plan to save home owners did not save that many, but we were in this situation because of past practices.
 

Caroljo

Senator
I hope you are well aware that it was Bush who began the bank bailouts.


And what brought on much of this? The recinding of Glass/Steagall, and it's replacement by Gramm/Leach/Bliley, as well as Bush calling for more lenient loaning on home mortgages. Listen to Bush calling on Fannie and Freddie to back more low income loans.


Yes, Obama continued it, and his plan to save home owners did not save that many, but we were in this situation because of past practices.
The mortgage crisis began under Clinton....in 1999

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

Barney Frank was questioned about Fannie Mae in 2005 (I think)...he denied there was anything wrong, he said they were safe and sound (in other words...everything's just hunky dory!). He knew that was a lie.

I didn't agree with Bush's bailout when he did it, and I don't agree with Obama's. None of them have helped the average person one bit. But to blame the housing crisis all on Bush is not being truthful.

If people instead of banks had been bailed out, I believe things would be much better today. Most people are sensible enough to use that money the right way, get out of debt, and the economy could be thriving right now because of it. But we'll never know.
 

Wahbooz

Governor
The mortgage crisis began under Clinton....in 1999

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

Barney Frank was questioned about Fannie Mae in 2005 (I think)...he denied there was anything wrong, he said they were safe and sound (in other words...everything's just hunky dory!). He knew that was a lie.

I didn't agree with Bush's bailout when he did it, and I don't agree with Obama's. None of them have helped the average person one bit. But to blame the housing crisis all on Bush is not being truthful.

If people instead of banks had been bailed out, I believe things would be much better today. Most people are sensible enough to use that money the right way, get out of debt, and the economy could be thriving right now because of it. But we'll never know.
Bush convinced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to back those mortgages, listen to the video. And you may say the mortgage crisis began under Clinton, because he signed a veto proof Gramm/Leach/Bliley, instead of vetoing it anyway. This opened up the flood gates for bankers to gamble with deposits. But as far as the housing industry, it was just fine in 1999. I was making money. But after 2001, the market went crazy, and I got out. A home with a state equalized value of 48,220 went to 64,300 in just 4 years. 6 months later it's state equalized value went to 67,770. In 2005 it jumped to 77,090. In 2007 it was up to 81,030.

New construction was even worse. This is what happened to the housing industry and the banking industry, especially when those properties fell back to as much as 58,400 by 2010. So you could have been holding a mortgage of as much as 160-200,000 on a home that was worth about 100,000 3 years later. And nobody there to buy it.

Now I agree, people should have been bailed out, not the banks. Far too many golden parachutes were paid out of taxpayer funds, for people who gambled with other people's money. But even Obama's 'bailout' of home owners was no more than a wet bandage on a wound.
 
Top