I don't recall specifying any exact date when the gov't took over the two mortgage agencies, that's only of concern to nitpickers.

So to recap: Old man, we were obviously discussing the bailout in 2008. More oxygen to the brain might help you, but I highly doubt it. :)

I don't recall specifying any exact date when the gov't took over the two mortgage agencies, that's only of concern to nitpickers.

OK, so only Fannie was founded as a 100% federal gov't entity during the FDR administrtation. I mentiond that I was just guessing on Freddie. You're such a nitpicker, right?

Back on topic:

For instance, Fannie and Freddy, always quasi-gov't agencies, were by that time fully part of the gov't, so in those cases you are essentially saying 'The gov't paid megabucks of bailout money to itself'. ~ C. R. Stucki

There's literally nothing you can post to make the asinine drivel above into a fact.

FACT: In 2008, neither Fannie or Freddie was "fully part of the government." Full stop.

If you object to my "only" terminology (and I've already acknowledged that a tax law revision which reduces or eliminates a deduction you've previously been allowed to take will, "ALL OTHER THIMNGS BEING EQUAL", reduce the amount of your 1040 refund.

However, "all other things" do not have to BE equal! You have, within the parameters of your earning capacity, the ability to have your refund be ANYTHING YOU WANT by, if you are an employee, adjusting the amount your employer withholds, OR, if you're self-employed, by increasing the amount of your quarterly pre-pmts.

Bottom line, if your current refund is smaller than you wanted, it's NOT because the ass-hole-in-chief phuqued you, it's because YOU PHUQUED YOURSELF!

OK, so only Fannie was founded as a 100% federal gov't entity during the FDR administrtation. I mentiond that I was just guessing on Freddie. You're such a nitpicker, right?

You're right, only one 'N'. And you're gonna use that oversight to justify your denial that the elimination/reduction of certain 1040 deductibles constitutes a tax increase? Pathetic!

You mischaracterized my statement in the same way you apparently can't count, moron. Regardless of all that, none of your prattling and goalpost moving changes the fact that you made a clueless statement about the "only thing" that affects the size of your tax refund is your W-4.

When FANNIE (and I presume FREDDIE) were created (by FDR), they were indeed "Federal" gov't entities, that were later privatized, and later still, taken over again by the gov't to keep from going bankrupt, correct?

Wrong, wrong, wrong! See right there is your problem, Stucki... you "presume." Freddie didn't exist until 1970, and your ridiculous attempt to move the goalposts yet again in some last ditch pathetic attempt to prove Fannie and Freddie are owned by the United States is still an epic fail.

Moving the goalposts back:

For instance, Fannie and Freddy, always quasi-gov't agencies, were by that time fully part of the gov't, so in those cases you are essentially saying 'The gov't paid megabucks of bailout money to itself'. ~ C. R. Stucki

Fannie and Freddie weren't "fully part of the government" in 2008. Full stop. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were put under a conservatorship of the U.S. federal government in September 2008, but that also in no way whatsoever makes either of them property of the United States. There's nothing you can say that will magically make the conservatorship of the two privately owned corporations known as Fannie and Freddie as being owned by the United States. Fannie and Freddie are public government-sponsored enterprises and public companies traded on the OTCQB as FNMA and FMCC, respectively.

Now shove off... go crack a book or two.
You can count to two, right? :)

You're right, only one 'N'. And you're gonna use that oversight to justify your denial that the elimination/reduction of certain 1040 deductibles constitutes a tax increase? Pathetic!

When FANNIE (and I presume FREDDIE) were created (by FDR), they were indeed "Federal" gov't entities, that were later privatized, and later still, taken over again by the gov't to keep from going bankrupt, correct?

As I recall, that's about the time when G-S handed out unprecedentedly huge yr-end bonuses to all employees, was it not?

No, it wasn't, for multiple reasons:

* Unprecedentedly means "without precedent," and since huge bonuses had been given out many times before... that makes your statement ridiculously false.

* Your usage of the words "all employees" is laughable on its face... and that too makes it a false statement. Although Goldman Sachs was famous for it's large bonuses; I have seen and been awed by many of them, but certainly not "all employees" received them.

* Multiple of the banks and AIG handed out their usual bonuses at taxpayers' expense, and many of the Goldman Sachs employees didn't take the bonuses that people were watching and reporting.

You are obviously free to prattle on and on about this all you wish, but I'm done here. You're insisting two privately owned publicly traded corporations are owned by the government based on words contained in their names... you also can't count... and you're obviously confused as per your usual. Try to keep up, geezer. :)

Google "What the two 'Fs' in FANNIE and FREDDIE stand for". A hint - it ain't 'Final'!

I don't have to Google it, old man. *laughs* So you're saying that you believe the use of the word "Federal" in a privately owned corporation's name means they are owned by the United States. That would be hysterical if it wasn't so honking ignorant. Somebody tell Federal Express they are the property of the United States because "Federal." Of course, their name is "FedEx" now.

And while you're at it, also ask about the two "Ns".

First off, what two "Ns"? There is only one "N" in FNMA and FHLMC. Are you seriously so stupid that you can't count to one? Same drill as above, though, Stucki; I wonder if National Car Rental knows they are owned by the United States. Are you mental? Scratch that: You are mental.

You are denying that the reduction/elimination of certain fed. income tax deductibles constitutes, in and of itself, a tax increase based on your contention that it was not a 'net' increase because the rich also got a big decrease.

Said the idiot who insists there are two "Ns" in FNMA and FHLMC.

There you've passed beyond dishonesty/bad judgement well into stupidity.

Said the guy who insists that two privately held corporations that are traded OTC are "fully owned by the government" and who just insinuated that "Federal" and "National" in a privately held corporation's name means they are "fully owned" property of the United States and who insists that multiple laws don't exist when they absolutely and unequivocally do exist.

Could you please stop posting your lies on this forum, Stucki? You're only embarrassing yourself often and repeatedly. :)

Re: the financial 'fragility' of G-S when the govt' was forcing bailout $ on all the bankers so as not to cause a run on the insolvent ones.

As I recall, that's about the time when G-S handed out unprecedentedly huge yr-end bonuses to all employees, was it not?

You are denying that the reduction/elimination of certain fed. income tax deductibles constitutes, in and of itself, a tax increase based on your contention that it was not a 'net' increase because the rich also got a big decrease.

There you've passed beyond dishonesty/bad judgement well into stupidity.

And while you're at it, also ask about the two "Ns".

Google "What the two 'Fs' in FANNIE and FREDDIE stand for". A hint - it ain't 'Final'!

Mueller sent a letter to Barr complaining about how Barr had portrayed the Mueller report in his letter to Congress.

Of course he did.

A few days later, they talked on the phone and Mueller complained about Barr calling his letter a “summary” of Mueller’s findings.

I thought they spoke the day after Mueller sent the letter to Barr. Regardless, Mueller is technically still an employee of the DOJ, and he is a "by the book" type of guy. I do know Mueller has agreed to testify before Congress, but the DOJ/Barr won't allow him to set the date of his testimony; now we know why. We also know why Barr is reluctant to be questioned by a lawyer. He knows he's misrepresenting the entire issue -- in other words, lying. Trump has a lot to hide and therefore so does Barr. They can only slow things down; the facts will inevitably emerge.

The reduction/elimination of certain deductibles in the new tax law basically amounts to a tax increase (for the rich, which you should cheer, right?), and theoretically would reduce your refund, 'all other things being equal'.

No, it doesn't amount to a tax increase for the rich when the so-called "rich" got the largest percentage tax cuts that far exceed the loss of said deductions. What it does do is increase the taxes on middle class taxpayers where the loss of the deductions exceeds the paltry percentage decrease in overall tax rates.

However, thanks for your admission that you were wrong when you made the asinine statement that "the only thing that affects the size your tax refund is your W-4 that you file with your employer to indicate how much you want to be over-withheld. Obviously when there are changes in tax laws that affect every single taxpayer filing a return, there are going to be a myriad of things that affect the size of a person's tax refund.

When deductions are no longer allowable from one tax filing season to another, that would be a "thing" that isn't a W-4 that would affect the size of a person's refund and therefore preclude a W-4 as being the "only thing."

However, that still leaves you free to have yourself overwithheld more than enough to offset that amount of refund deduction IF you are dumb enough to WANT to be overwithheld, right?

Quite simply not relevant to your asinine statement about it being the "only thing."

Bottom line: Trump isn't the only economic moron in this world as long as you're around, Stucki. :)

This all took place two weeks before Barr testified to Congress that he did not know whether Mueller agreed with what Barr had stated in his conclusions.

And no one but the morons at WaPoop have seen this alleged so-called "letter"..

Funny how that is, eh?? :D

I don't dispute much of anything about your explanation of where the money 'wound up', only your personal analysis of how to REGARD the payments.

It's not exactly "personal analysis" to state the fact that banks received huge bailouts.

For instance, Fannie and Freddy, always quasi-gov't agencies, were by that time fully part of the gov't, so in those cases you are essentially saying 'The gov't paid megabucks of bailout money to itself'.

You do realize that "quasi" means "not really," right? Wouldn't it therefore take a special kind of stupid to claim that Fannie and Freddie are "not really" government agencies but were fully part of the government?

FACT: Neither Fannie Mae nor Freddie Mac are part of the government and still aren't. Fannie and Freddie are privately owned enterprises and are both publicly traded corporations. Sure, they were delisted from the NYSE but are still traded OTC.

Perhaps you've confused Fannie and Freddie with Ginnie Mae, which actually is owned by the government.

And regarding G-S, they received no bailout $ 'FROM THE GOVERNMENT'.

Wrong again, Stucki. Goldman Sachs received $10 billion of the first $125 billion from the $700 billion bailout bill. You could have even looked it up using the link I supplied above, but you didn't. Which begs the obvious question: How could anyone be this stupid?

The gov't bailed out AIG, and AIG paid their debts to G-S, using their own bailout money.

What part of "$12.9 billion of AIG's bailout went directly to Goldman Sachs" confused you? I already stated AIG paid Goldman Sachs, but that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about Goldman not receiving any bailout money and Goldman not needing it.

And regarding the four biggest banks, The gov't (Sec of Treas) called them on the phone and told them "We're sending all of you Xgazillion $ whether you want it/need it or not, because we do not want to appear to stigmatize the banks that ARE insolvent and need the $. You just take the $, keep your mouths shut, and repay the treasury after the panic subsides", and that is exactly what happened.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. In fact, by the end of 2008, Goldman had snarfed up $34 billion in federal loans. Where were you when this was all disclosed by admission in federal hearings, Stucki? I would wager you were somewhere posting incorrect information on the Internet because you obviously weren't paying attention.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/secrets-and-lies-of-the-bailout-113270/

THEY LIED ABOUT THE HEALTH OF THE BANKS

The main reason banks didn’t lend out bailout funds is actually pretty simple: Many of them needed the money just to survive. Which leads to another of the bailout’s broken promises – that taxpayer money would only be handed out to “viable” banks.

Soon after TARP passed, Paulson and other officials announced the guidelines for their unilaterally changed bailout plan. Congress had approved $700 billion to buy up toxic mortgages, but $250 billion of the money was now shifted to direct capital injections for banks. (Although Paulson claimed at the time that handing money directly to the banks was a faster way to restore market confidence than lending it to homeowners, he later confessed that he had been contemplating the direct-cash-injection plan even before the vote.) This new let’s-just-fork-over-cash portion of the bailout was called the Capital Purchase Program. Under the CPP, nine of America’s largest banks – including Citi, Wells Fargo, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, State Street and Bank of New York Mellon – received $125 billion, or half of the funds being doled out. Since those nine firms accounted for 75 percent of all assets held in America’s banks – $11 trillion – it made sense they would get the lion’s share of the money. But in announcing the CPP, Paulson and Co. promised that they would only be stuffing cash into “healthy and viable” banks. This, at the core, was the entire justification for the bailout: That the huge infusion of taxpayer cash would not be used to rescue individual banks, but to kick-start the economy as a whole by helping healthy banks start lending again.

The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia
This announcement marked the beginning of the legend that certain Wall Street banks only took the bailout money because they were forced to – they didn’t need all those billions, you understand, they just did it for the good of the country. “We did not, at that point, need TARP,” Chase chief Jamie Dimon later claimed, insisting that he only took the money “because we were asked to by the secretary of Treasury.” Goldman chief Lloyd Blankfein similarly claimed that his bank never needed the money, and that he wouldn’t have taken it if he’d known it was “this pregnant with potential for backlash.” A joint statement by Paulson, Bernanke and FDIC chief Sheila Bair praised the nine leading banks as “healthy institutions” that were taking the cash only to “enhance the overall performance of the U.S. economy.”

But right after the bailouts began, soon-to-be Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner admitted to Barofsky, the inspector general, that he and his cohorts had picked the first nine bailout recipients because of their size, without bothering to assess their health and viability. Paulson, meanwhile, later admitted that he had serious concerns about at least one of the nine firms he had publicly pronounced healthy. And in November 2009, Bernanke gave a closed-door interview to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, the body charged with investigating the causes of the economic meltdown, in which he admitted that 12 of the 13 most prominent financial companies in America were on the brink of failure during the time of the initial bailouts.

On the inside, at least, almost everyone connected with the bailout knew that the top banks were in deep trouble. “It became obvious pretty much as soon as I took the job that these companies weren’t really healthy and viable,” says Barofsky, who stepped down as TARP inspector in 2011.

This early episode would prove to be a crucial moment in the history of the bailout. It set the precedent of the government allowing unhealthy banks to not only call themselves healthy, but to get the government to endorse their claims. Projecting an image of soundness was, to the government, more important than disclosing the truth. Officials like Geithner and Paulson seemed to genuinely believe that the market’s fears about corruption in the banking system was a bigger problem than the corruption itself. Time and again, they justified TARP as a move needed to “bolster confidence” in the system – and a key to that effort was keeping the banks’ insolvency a secret. In doing so, they created a bizarre new two-tiered financial market, divided between those who knew the truth about how bad things were and those who did not.

A month or so after the bailout team called the top nine banks “healthy,” it became clear that the biggest recipient, Citigroup, had actually flat-lined on the ER table. Only weeks after Paulson and Co. gave the firm $25 billion in TARP funds, Citi – which was in the midst of posting a quarterly loss of more than $17 billion – came back begging for more. In November 2008, Citi received another $20 billion in cash and more than $300 billion in guarantees.

. . .

Even worse, the $700 billion in TARP loans ended up being dwarfed by more than $7.7 trillion in secret emergency lending that the Fed awarded to Wall Street – loans that were only disclosed to the public after Congress forced an extraordinary one-time audit of the Federal Reserve. The extent of this “secret bailout” didn’t come out until November 2011, when Bloomberg Markets, which went to court to win the right to publish the data, detailed how the country’s biggest firms secretly received trillions in near-free money throughout the crisis.

Goldman Sachs, which had made such a big show of being reluctant about accepting $10 billion in TARP money, was quick to cash in on the secret loans being offered by the Fed. By the end of 2008, Goldman had snarfed up $34 billion in federal loans – and it was paying an interest rate of as low as just 0.01 percent for the huge cash infusion. Yet that funding was never disclosed to shareholders or taxpayers, a fact Goldman confirms. “We did not disclose the amount of our participation in the two programs you identify,” says Goldman spokesman Michael Duvally.

Goldman CEO Blankfein later dismissed the importance of the loans, telling the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that the bank wasn’t “relying on those mechanisms.” But in his book, Bailout, Barofsky says that Paulson told him that he believed Morgan Stanley was “just days” from collapse before government intervention, while Bernanke later admitted that Goldman would have been the next to fall.

Goldman was close to falling, Stucki. A lot of the big banks were flailing just like you do the majority of the time when you attempt to school anyone about anything. :)

This all took place two weeks before Barr testified to Congress that he did not know whether Mueller agreed with what Barr had stated in his conclusions.

This is the problem with commenting on blogs - one usually doesn't say everything that one means. Most times, lots is left out.

I know exactly what you're saying. Add to that the very real problem that fact checking the misinformation could qualify as a nonpaying full-time job.

Just between you and me, Kick, and the four virtual walls, how would you feel about Biden tapping Tim Geithner to revive his role as Treasury Secretary and Elizabeth Warren to head up the CFPB?

Well... just between us, those two picks couldn't be any worse than Herman Cain and Stephen Moore. ;)

It's a serious question, sort of. :)

I gave it a serious answer. *shakes head* Seriously, there's got to be some others out there without Biden having to resort to doing that.

Still, it would be infinitely gratifying to watch the GOP heads explode. Under Donald Trump the GOP has become the largest group of whiney little britches on the planet... that much pathetic white male grievance all whining in unison... constantly. *laughs*

The reduction/elimination of certain deductibles in the new tax law basically amounts to a tax increase (for the rich, which you should cheer, right?), and theoretically would reduce your refund, 'all other things being equal'.

However, that still leaves you free to have yourself overwithheld more than enough to offset that amount of refund deduction IF you are dumb enough to WANT to be overwithheld, right?

I don't dispute much of anything about your explanation of where the money 'wound up', only your personal analysis of how to REGARD the payments.

For instance, Fannie and Freddy, always quasi-gov't agencies, were by that time fully part of the gov't, so in those cases you are essentially saying 'The gov't paid megabucks of bailout money to itself'.

And regarding G-S, they received no bailout $ 'FROM THE GOVERNMENT'. The gov't bailed out AIG, and AIG paid their debts to G-S, using their own bailout money.

And regarding the four biggest banks, The gov't (Sec of Treas) called them on the phone and told them "We're sending all of you Xgazillion $ whether you want it/need it or not, because we do not want to appear to stigmatize the banks that ARE insolvent and need the $. You just take the $, keep your mouths shut, and repay the treasury after the panic subsides", and that is exactly what happened.

The only thing that affects the size your tax refund is your W-4 that you file with your employer to indicate how much you want to be over-withheld.

Wrong, Stucki. If you could take deductions for multiple items on your 2017 tax return that are no longer deductible in 2018 and beyond, this can definitely affect the size of your tax refund. Unlimited state and local tax deductions are now capped at $10,000 (married), unreimbursed work expenses are no longer deductible, fees for financial services are no longer deductible, advisor fees and tax preparation fees, professional dues, and a long list of other previously deductible items are no longer tax deductible. Job-related moving expenses have been eliminated for virtually all workers except military required to move, etc.

If you're trying to win an award for the person who posts the most incorrect information, you should know that there's not an award for that, and if there was... enough said.

Bottom line: Trump isn't the only economic moron in this world.

Bottom line: As long as C. R. Stucki is alive and breathing, Trump obviously never could be. :)

Over and out.

This is the problem with commenting on blogs - one usually doesn't say everything that one means. Most times, lots is left out.

You are right about Fannie and Freddie and how and when the bailout funds were dispersed.

Just between you and me, Kick, and the four virtual walls, how would you feel about Biden tapping Tim Geithner to revive his role as Treasury Secretary and Elizabeth Warren to head up the CFPB?

It's a serious question, sort of. :)

Yes, you are right, CRS. AIG was the biggest financial entity to get bailed out.

Wrong, EM... CRS is wrong as per usual. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were by far the two biggest recipients... in fact, so large that they were bailed out separately via the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

As for CRS's claims that Goldman Sachs received no bailout, $12.9 billion of AIG's bailout went directly to Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions that were counterparties to AIG's credit default swaps. Anyone interested can Google AIG counterparties to credit default swaps, and there are banks galore... which I would wager by her posted comments that EM is already fully aware.

Easier than listening to CRS and all his usual incorrect drivel, here is a list of all bailout recipients wherein "Outgoing Bailout Funds" and "Incoming Bailout Funds" are tracked on an ongoing basis by ProPublica.

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list/simple

The list is easily sortable by clicking on the columns to see the largest recipients, and far from CRS's incorrect information, sorting the "Bailout Funds Outgoing Disbursed" column reveals the facts.

Bank of America... $45,000,000,000
Citigroup.......…..... $45,000,000,000
JPMorgan Chase... $25,000,000,000
Wells Fargo........... $25,000,000,000

Why all the hub bub about populism when there's a better option, pie-pulism!

There's not enough pie in politics. I like the pie idea! :)

We're evidently not communicating on the refund thing, and you seem not to understand the whole W-4 form thing. But if you want to maximize your refund, tell your employer to deduct 100% of your income for income tax. That will maximize your refund regardless of how much or how few expenses you can deduct, regardless of how the economy's doing etc.

As for obstruction, if you order people to obstruct and they ignore you and you forgot what you ordered, have you committed obstruction?

Attempted Obstruction...???

You see a police officer chasing a woman, yelling that she robbed a bank and ordering her to stop. She runs past you, and because you think she was cute, you stick your foot out to trip the officer.

The officer hits your foot, stumbles, but is able to regain his balance and finally catches the woman two blocks later.

Do you think the officer will charge you for obstruction even though you did not prevent the woman from being caught?

So Trump’s tax plan has nothing to do with the economy’s health?

If you can no longer deduct expenses that you could previously deduct, that doesn’t have any effect on your taxes?

Families getting thousands of dollars less back than they are used to getting from their tax returns — or worse, owing money to the IRS — these things have nothing to do with our economic health?

Let the Republicans tell their base that none of these things matter because the economy is doing great — we might rid our government of their corruption once and for all!

Truer words were never written.

The only thing that affects the size your tax refund is your W-4 that you file with your employer to indicate how much you want to be over-withheld.

Hasn't got a DAMN THING to do with the economy or how well you're doing or any such thing.

Bottom line: Trump isn't the only economic moron in this world.

Bottom line: The economy has stayed strong in spite of Trump’s policies.

See!!!??

Democrats **CAN** work with President Trump!!

Awesome!!!

I knew they would come around!! :D

If you haven't seen ENDGAME yet, you simply MUST see it in 3D...

It's probably the closest thing to a HOLODECK you will see in your lifetime...

The NYT did not condemn the Greater Jewish People or even the Ultra Religious Jewish People for that matter. It pointed out a specific, non-trivial lack of neighborliness on the part of some ultra religious Jews that are a minority within an ethnic minority.

The NY Times article (which I have open before me)specifically addressed the failure of ultra orthodox yeshivas to actively evade public health regulations during a measles epidemic that is largely centered within their community...and threatening to break out. Measles is one of the most contagious diseases on the planet. The City has to balance the rights of all its citizens during a crisis.

The ultra orthodox communities in NYC (and in Israel) have high rates of poverty. They accept public services. They are a part of a broader community which subsidizes them to a significant degree. Their community may be poor, but it is politically very savvy. The ultra Orthodox in Israel have the same strained relationship with modernity and the moderns that live within the Jewish State of Israel.

It was not my intention to imply "equally responsible", especially for the 08 financial crisis. I'd go WAY closer to 80% Dems, 20% Reps.

Please don't misquote me, CRS.

While Democrats were pushing home ownership, Republicans were against much regulation for the banks, especially in the wake of the repeal of Glass-Steagall which had prevented commercial banks from merging with investment banks.

Regulation is key here. I'm not sure how far along the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation is in terms of implementing regulatory reforms but I know congressional Republicans are fighting this, tooth and nail.

So, both parties are responsible but I would argue that your choice of "equally responsible" is not an accurate term when speaking of how the parties address these issues and economic growth in general.

Re: "I agree that the Dems and Reps were equally responsible for the financial crisis . . "

True, both had SOME responsibility for the sub-prime disaster, especially at the presidential level, but NOT at the congressional level.

The congresspeople who pushed the sub-prime loans for the poor people and bad-credit people were OVERWHELMINGLY DEMS, in the persons of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Elizabeth Warren.

Those three, along with the Main St. lenders (mentioned above in my [24]), all believed that the housing bubble would go on forever, because house prices had not suffered a meaningful decline in any of their lifetimes (75 yrs), and they were afraid the poor folks were going to miss out on their chance for home ownership, and they PRESSURED the lenders to make the sub-prime loans. No Rep congresspeople did that!

This was the insurance giant that Elizabeth Warren said could have just been forced into bankruptcy. Ha! This is why she has no business running for president.

By Main Street, I was referring to people like me who would have suffered terribly had the bailout of AIG not occurred.

Also, wouldn't you agree that had the big bailouts not occurred there would have been a panic and run on all the banks and the financial system would have collapsed.

Yeah, I know the car companies aren't banks. :)

I question whether your really understand who it was that actually got "bailed out".

The single largest member of the "bail out" fraternity was AIG (the insurance giant), and they are not even a bank. The next down the rankings were GM and Chrysler, and they are not banks.

The next ranks were the finance divisions of GM and GE, and they were only sort of "quasi banks", along with Merrill Lynch, the huge stock brokerage.

The two biggest banks in the middle of the sub-crime mortgage disaster were Lehman Bros. and Bear Stearns, and they were NOT bailed out, they were allowed to fail.

The hated "Wall ST" group of big banks that most Dems think caused the problem (Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo etc. didn't NEED to be bailed out, they only the middle men, and they MADE money on the sub-prime disaster.

And as far as 'Main St" (Countrywide Finance, Golden West Finance, Wachovia and half a dozen others) that actually MADE the "sub-prime" loans which they sold to "Wall St" for resale to investors, NONE of them got bailed out!

Thank-you for that. I completely agree.

If the Obama administration and Congress had cracked down the perpetrators when they were down, then my retirement savings plan would never have recovered.

This is a difficult concept to understand, let alone accept, but Wall Street had to be bailed out in order to save Main Street. The financial fire had to be put out and the most unfortunate aspect of that had to be that the arsonists benefited.

I don't like that any more than you do but it had to be that way in order to prevent a panic and run on the banks, big and small, and a depression that would have been worse and far more reaching than the Great Depression.

I think the Dodd-Frank legislation went a long way to reel the big banks in and make it far easier to just let them fail if they acted in harmful ways to the financial system as a whole.

I agree with you that Democrats and Republicans are responsible for creating the environment that ultimately led to the 2007/08 global financial crisis. I also think that Democrats should accept their role and ensure that the necessary regulations that will prevent another crisis are in place and stay in place.

The one critical factor you leave out of your rhyme is how the average American would have been impacted if the big banks were not bailed out. It is quite conceivable that we would still be in the thick of a destructive depression if the fat cats had not been bailed out

Very nice comment.

I don't think that beating Trump is all that matters. That's why I think Joe Biden is the best candidate, by far.

I am so looking forward to a robust primary campaign and I can't wait for the debates.

Hopefully, issues to do with campaign finance reform and what Citizens United has unleashed will be discussed in thoughtful ways.

But, a pol like Biden is the greatest example of a candidate who works for America and not for corporate interests, despite having represented Delaware for so long.

For the record, I believe the recovery from the Great Recession would have been infinitely more robust for everyone if congressional Republicans didn't work to prevent it.

No, there are not..

Correct that to read

Are their Anti Semitic-esque tropes that accuse christians of spreading disease??

My mistake...

CW, my right...... er.... arm.. for an edit feature.. :D

Is this reporting anti-Christian?

Are their Anti Semitic tropes that accuse christians of spreading disease??

No, there are not..

Ergo, your spewage while entertaining and laughable, is not relevant..

Get a life.

Du auch....

It has been widely reported that Christian Scientists leaders strongly discourage vaccination among their members. Google it.

Is this reporting anti-Christian?

Get a life.

I disagree.. Bernie Sanders, along with AOC and Ilan Omar and Tlaib waassherfave... THEY are the heart and soul of the Democrat Party in the here an now..

And there is real proof of that- the Clintons, Obama, Biden, Pelosi, etc.

Those are all has beens. Relics of the past that the current Democrat Party has left behind...

For better or worse, 2019 is proving to be a year that provides the American public a reeducation in some of the themes of classical antisemitism.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/03/10/new-york-times-editorial-blames-jewish-schools-for-spreading-highly-contagious-disease/

Looks like the Propaganda Arm of the Democrat Party has an Anti-Semite problem.. :(

Yet here we are, at the end of April, planting our gardens and facing snow in much of the country. If this is evidence of global warming, then Bernie Sanders’s popularity is evidence that the Democrat Party has shifted to the right. Good luck selling that.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/04/global_warming_going_the_way_of_russia_collusion.html#ixzz5mZY9wz9E

Russia Collusion = Global Warming

Oh whole lotta hysterical fear-mongering with very VERY little fact to support...

The former Texas congressman unveiled the first major policy proposal of his candidacy, which is a climate change initiative that would cost $5 trillion in over 10 years in hopes of reaching zero carbon emissions by 2050.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/beto-orourke-we-only-have-10-years-let-on-earth-if-we-dont-address-climate-change

OH NO!!!! CIVILIZATION IS DOOMED IF WE DON'T GIVE MORE MONEY TO AL Crazed-Sex-Poodle GORE AND RICHARD BRANSON!!!!!

To think that there are actually people in this world STOOPID enough to buy into this fear-mongering claptrap... :^/

The chairmen and members of the six panels investigating the president are increasingly angered by the White House's unwillingness to comply as they carry out their oversight role, according to several House Democratic officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter freely. But that anger extends into the ranks of Pelosi's team as well, according to leadership officials.
https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Trump-s-lack-of-cooperation-with-Congress-sparks-13805488.php

Like I said.. President Trump's plan is clear..

Frustrate the Democrats incessantly and goad them into doing something really really stoopid..

And Democrats are falling for it hook, line and sinker.. :D

LOS ANGELES, April 29 (Reuters) - A U.S. combat veteran of the war in Afghanistan who prosecutors say plotted to detonate multiple nail bombs at a Los Angeles-area white nationalist rally, seeking to cause mass casualties, was arrested in an FBI sting operation, federal prosecutors said on Monday.
http://news.trust.org/item/20190430012405-w8t6e

A Democrat Party hero....

Pelosi wants to give him a medal.. :^/

That's just painful to watch... :(

But for now, the S&P and the Nasdaq just hit all-time highs, and the newly announced rebound in first-quarter growth, to 3.2 percent, trounced the market's all-important expectations.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-struggling-for-pocketbook-message-as-roaring-economy-helps-trump

As I said.. The BEST plan of action for Democrats is to cede 2020 and start planning for 2024..

Because there ain't NO WAY Democrats are going to prevail in 2020....

Not gonna happen.. :D

Funny.. I said the same thing about 2016... :D

....When the POTUS has a -R after their name..

There.. Fixed it for you.. :D

When Barack Obama entered office, the economy was in full free-fall. For the first six months of his first term, things got even worse. When things finally turned around, the recovery was notable for how slowly it happened. The economy bounced back, but it wasn't that big a bounce.

Try telling that to people here. To hear them tell, Obama's economy was better than Trump's...

But, again, Obama beat what the economic projections indicated. Presidents rarely get elected with the unemployment numbers so high, but somehow Obama pulled it off. Obama was very careful not to campaign on "everything's going great," because his team knew how out of touch that would sound to many voters. Instead they ran on "we've still got a lot of work left to do," which is a weaker argument to have to make.

Except Obama DID run on an EVERYTHING IS GREAT platform.. Remember the Summer Of Recovery??

They only reason he got it away with it is because he was black and everyone who pointed out how bad Obama was, was attacked and vilified as a racist..

There was even a documented conspiracy by Left Wingers to do just that.. Falsely accuse people of racism that don't toe the Obama line..

Trump, obviously, hasn't fully delivered on such sweeping promises. The economy has been doing well under Trump, continuing the trend that began back in 2009. Unemployment went even lower than the low numbers Obama left Trump. The stock market hasn't tanked under Trump's watch. Growth improved. In fact, almost all the big economic indicators are pretty good right now.

Indicators that EVERYONE on the Left, including everyone here, claimed would take and nosedive and implode and explode and whatever other bad catastrophe ya'all claimed would happen if Trump were elected...

I wasn't sure if I had mentioned that before so I just wanted to point it out.. :D

President Trump has been championing the nativist side of populism, which is no surprise since he actually launched his political campaign on demonizing brown people and immigrants.

Oh, come on! Let's stick with the FACTS, shall we?? There was no such campaign... The campaign was based on demonizing ILLEGAL immigrants.. Yunno.. The people who kill and rape and murder and assault AMERICAN CITIZENS...

Jeeesh...

Their challenge will be to paint Trump and the GOP as saying: "This is as good as it gets," while they run on the message of: "Things can get a lot better, and here's how."

We have already been shown the Democrat idea of "here's how"...

It was called the Obama Administration and it was an unmitigated disaster for this country and Americans all over...

Want proof???

Want bona fide FACT to support the claim that the Obama Administration was the worst disaster for this country??

Because Obama gave us the Trump Administration...

Understanding this is key to beating Trump. No presidential candidate understands it more than Joe Biden.

Hey, Chris … you aren't advising the Biden campaign, are you? :)

And, then, the Democratic candidate could go on to spell out exactly how a Democratic administration would have acted to make the recovery work for everyone.