Safetykitten
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-02-11 09:51 PM
Original message |
If you believe "they paid it back" is true, you may want to see this. |
Mimosa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-02-11 10:06 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Thanks for the info, SafetyKitten n/t |
dkf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-02-11 10:22 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Oh for goodness sakes, this is based on a hypothetical retroactive risk charge? |
|
"He argues that banks should be paying taxpayers for the privilege of having them and their counterparties rescued, and that is over $300 billion a year.". So basically we didn't negotiate a good enough deal.
The fed is doing what they are doing. Seems to me his argument is that the Fed shouldn't be keeping rates so low and that looks like a beef with the Fed.
This is really a charge of government mismanagement and insufficient demands early on.
|
DCKit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-02-11 10:44 PM
Response to Original message |
3. From what I've heard, the actual bailout was closer to $14.7 trillion. |
|
And that would certainly explain why they've been so busy printing dollars - and the resulting inflation.
|
bhikkhu
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-02-11 10:53 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Its an argument that banks should be charged for insurance |
|
...as the "bailouts" were similar to insurance. Who knows where they got the headline from that - one thing has little to do with the other.
There seems to more deliberate ignorance om this than on any other issue I can think of, except health care, perhaps.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:26 AM
Response to Original message |