You're responding to one with your post, you even quoted him....
thats proof you don't recognize a real asshole when you see one...
So you admit you are a moronic asshole

You're responding to one with your post, you even quoted him....
thats proof you don't recognize a real asshole when you see one...
So you admit you are a moronic asshole![]()
Yep - TARP was a good thing. Which you were wrong about, btw.
Haha.
I love how Onceler thinks that because the banks paid back the money that I should have promoted this as a great idea.
We needed to break apart the "too big to fail" not support it with cheap loans.
Why don't you just admit that you know little of economics and even less about the significance of our banking system? Sheesh.
This sentence has no bearing on my previous statement, nor are you a capable judge.
I didn't promote TARP because "too big to fail" needs to be "too big to exist" and it did nothing at all to resolve that issue.
While I agree w/ you & SF that "too big to fail" needed to be addressed, it's ridiculous to say that TARP should have been the vehicle for addressing it. TARP was an emergency, time-sensitive measure.
We spend way too much time ignoring the problems until they are all "emergency, time-sensitive" measures and then use that as an excuse not to address the actual problem.
This sentence has no bearing on my previous statement, nor are you a capable judge. It is a witless non sequitur that you spout in the hopes that it will make you seem smart to people you politically agree with.
I didn't promote TARP because "too big to fail" needs to be "too big to exist" and TARP did nothing at all to resolve that issue.
I don't disagree w/ the general sentiment, but again, it's ludicrous to assert that TARP could have possibly addressed something as complex as a "fix" on "too big to fail." I will agree that this should have been addressed subsequently, but it was not a good reason for opposing TARP, nor was it a reasonable expectation for TARP.
"Too Big To Fail" makes a nice bumper sticker but has nothing to do with reality, durno. You should know that.
Had TARP been propounded as the temp fix to bridge the gap until we can fix "too big to fail" I likely would have supported it more readily. It became, as I predicted, a new platform for "too big to fail" to become even more "too big" and we failed once again to take proper advantage of a crisis to affect positive change.
Your criticism has nothing to do w/ TARP. You think gov't should do something about "too big to fail," but nothing about TARP was what you predicted. It ended up costing nothing, and saved millions of jobs.
How does someone not support a measure like that? Your alternative (not passing TARP), would have certainly been pretty gloomy for a lot of people.
I don't disagree w/ the general sentiment, but again, it's ludicrous to assert that TARP could have possibly addressed something as complex as a "fix" on "too big to fail." I will agree that this should have been addressed subsequently, but it was not a good reason for opposing TARP, nor was it a reasonable expectation for TARP.
Wow, you can't possibly be as stupid as this post makes you sound, this is clearly based on how much you want to disagree with every statement I ever make based on political ideology and completely fails to take into account that you have no idea what my position is on this, or any other issue for that matter, issue and should possibly shut up for a bit and learn things before you begin to knee-jerk your way into oblivion.
It's just a bit of advice, but you should know where people stand before you begin to fire the arrows. You've missed here, miserably, because you first aimed in the wrong direction and forgot to fletch the arrows first.
No you didn't, you lying fuck. Pull up Huffington Post and go indoctrinate yourself.Liberal logic? I'll take it.
No you didn't, you lying fuck. Pull up Huffington Post and go indoctrinate yourself.![]()