Bright Side of October Surprise

[clistensprechen]

One of the biggest scandals of Dubya's TARP was taxpayers' money going into the payment of bonuses at the bailed out banks.

The billions that the 1% sits on and hoarding came from you and me as they picked out pockets. What's so good about all this? SuperPACs, that's what. And that mountain of money is mostly going into ad buys, and those ad buys are for buying ad time on "liberal media".

Has to be, because buying ad time to preach to the already-converted isn't going to convince the unconvinced to turn out and vote for their side too.

As the floodgates of cash swing wide open, the economy is gonna pick up just before November.

Surprise!

 :woot:

[Don Houston]

Do you realize that Both Barrack Obama and John McCain voted in FAVOR of the TARP?  Why is it all on Bush?  Congress is the one that wrote and approved the law.  Bush just signed it into law

[clistensprechen]

Bush didn't veto it.

Oh--and the president is always the head of his Party. True for both Parties.

[RWE]

One of the biggest scandals of Dubya's TARP was taxpayers' money going into the payment of bonuses at the bailed out banks.
...
As the floodgates of cash swing wide open, the economy is gonna pick up just before November.
 :woot:

So, your economic theory is that giving taxpayer money to banks is a good way to create jobs.

[clistensprechen]

I don't know how you came up with that one. That's not only a stretch but it's a hop, skip, and jump over the conservative argument that corporate income invariably goes to individuals--when cons argue that corporations are people.

Do the math, it's very basic: bailout money that is distributed in bonuses go to individual fat cats...you know, the ones that take VIP entrances for granted at private $50,000 campaign fund raisers. The corporations give the money to the SuperPACs. So do individuals in addition to the fundraisers.  Money just flows like Ole Man River like a double-whammy.

It's the liberal media that will be creating jobs.

[RWE]

Do the math, it's very basic: bailout money that is distributed in bonuses go to individual fat cats...you know, the ones that take VIP entrances for granted at private $50,000 campaign fund raisers. The corporations give the money to the SuperPACs. So do individuals in addition to the fundraisers.  Money just flows like Ole Man River like a double-whammy.

It's the liberal media that will be creating jobs.

Hey, you do the math. In your economic fantasy, the media creates jobs with money that came from Superpacs via bankers, via the Government via the taxpayer. Wiggle all you want but that's exactly what you are cheering about. Trickle down job creation. Give taxpayer money to the rich and jobs are created. That's your theory as you spelled it out.

[clistensprechen]

Do the math, it's very basic: bailout money that is distributed in bonuses go to individual fat cats...you know, the ones that take VIP entrances for granted at private $50,000 campaign fund raisers. The corporations give the money to the SuperPACs. So do individuals in addition to the fundraisers.  Money just flows like Ole Man River like a double-whammy.

It's the liberal media that will be creating jobs.

Hey, you do the math. In your economic fantasy, the media creates jobs with money that came from Superpacs via bankers, via the Government via the taxpayer. Wiggle all you want but that's exactly what you are cheering about. Trickle down job creation. Give taxpayer money to the rich and jobs are created. That's your theory as you spelled it out.

lol

It's trickle down to liberals via liberal media. You left that part out.  It takes you a while, but you catch on eventually. There's hope.  :cheers:

Money is only paper as long as you keep sitting on it. Money is worth something only when it's in circulation. When the fat cat tightwads let loose with their cash, money will flow again by whatever means. Regardless, it'll be spent. That's the point.

[Don Houston]

Bush didn't veto it.

Oh--and the president is always the head of his Party. True for both Parties.

So can we then blame Clinton for the Repeal of the Glass-Steagal (SP?) act.

Clinton didn't veto it.

[clistensprechen]

Bush didn't veto it.

Oh--and the president is always the head of his Party. True for both Parties.

So can we then blame Clinton for the Repeal of the Glass-Steagal (SP?) act.

Clinton didn't veto it.

Yup, but he had an excuse: Greenspan's advice. And yes, Dubya has the same excuse. But both parties thought Greenspan wasn't only just a good idea to keep on, he was considered a genius.

And yet here we have, in this very thread, a conservative who is on the hairy edge of saying Trickle-Down Reaganomics does NOT work. How 'bout that.

[Don Houston]

And who is that

[clistensprechen]

RWE, in his last post just above.   

[RWE]

RWE, in his last post just above.   

Trickle down Reaganomics allowed people to keep their money through lower taxes to create jobs. On the other hand, Claranomics takes money from the taxpayer and gives it to the rich to create jobs. Trickle down Claranomics is what I'm against.

[wbcoleman]

Bush didn't veto it.

Oh--and the president is always the head of his Party. True for both Parties.

Oh, and what is PRESIDENT Obama's position on TARP??

[Don Houston]

RWE, in his last post just above.   

Trickle down Reaganomics allowed people to keep their money through lower taxes to create jobs. On the other hand, Claranomics takes money from the taxpayer and gives it to the rich to create jobs. Trickle down Claranomics is what I'm against.

Have the tax cuts worked?

[Don Houston]

Bush didn't veto it.

Oh--and the president is always the head of his Party. True for both Parties.

Oh, and what is PRESIDENT Obama's position on TARP??

According to his voting record while in the Senate, he thought it was a great idea