Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

I don't mind working 'til I die

I'm seen too many people die when they stopped working because their work meant a lot more to them than playing shuffleboard or, Heaven forfend, golf. Nevertheless, I've got to agree with Marguerite DiGaetano:

"I think the person who invents the cubicle where you can discreetly hang your walker where it doesn't trip anybody, that person will be very popular with the baby boomers," she said. "Who's gonna be able to retire at 65? That's only seven years away. Not me. I'll be working until I die."

What I do mind, though, is having what little money I did have stolen by stone-hearted motherless billionaire banksters.

And what I really mind is that the legacy parties -- including the fuckhead Ds who are supposed to stand for the little guy, at least some of the time -- not only allowed the stealing to happen, it was their policy goal. That's what the bailouts were all about. That's what the Catfood Commission is all about.

bailoutnationchart-500

Just so that you get a sense of the scale of the theft. The money "we" gave the banksters is on the left hand side.

0
No votes yet

Comments

KIttyWells's picture
Submitted by KIttyWells on

The TARP was started by REpublican and Bush appointed Paulson who just gave the banks our money.

Obama changed that: instead of just giving them the money, he let them borrow the money and they had to give us back the money plus interest and dividends.

Now most of those rotten banks have given the money back plus more as they get out of bankruptcy.

There IS a difference betwen the two parties.

Obama also gave 90% of Americans a tax cut while not cutting the taxes of the richies or the corporations like the Republicans do.

Also the Republicans with only a couple of Dems managed to keep Bush's tax cuts for the richest while Obama and the Dems tried let those taxes go back down as Bush's law said to do.

Submitted by lambert on

First, the banks who took the TARP money were never in bankruptcy, as you claim. They were insolvent, and should have been allowed to go bankrupt and/or be broken up, but the only institution to go bankrupt was Lehman. Perhaps you're confusing the bank bailout with the GM bailout? Since GM did go bankrupt?

Second, I'd like evidence that "Obama changed that." He whipped for the bill, but he didn't write the legislation.

Third, regarding the talking point that "they gave the money back," see Yves at "Geithner Yet Again Misrepresents TARP “Performance”"

The problem with propaganda is that it is generally effective. Utter the Big Lie often enough and most people will come to believe it. ...

The Obama Administration has engaged in persistent misrepresentation of the outcome of the TARP equity injections, which is a manifestation of its early decision to reconstitute as much as possible, the banking industry that had just driven itself and the global economy off the cliff. ...

Let’s debunk the two overarching messages:

1. Taxpayers got a good deal

2. “Paying back” the TARP is a sign of success of the program

Start with the “good deal” myth. Note that while Geithner does use the word “investment” from time to time, he and Obama when talking about the TARP have most often used the turn of phrase “pay back.”

Some members of the public might hear the “pay back” and assume the funding had been via debt. Instead, the Capital Purchase Program program was senior preferred stock plus equity warrants. The Treasury did build in some mechanisms to encourage return of the funds (preferred dividends increased from 5% to 9% after year 5, for instance). But there was no immediate pressure in the deal terms to lead a quick return of the funds to necessarily be a good thing.

Most important, the key metric as to whether the deal was a good deal is not the speed of repayment, as the Adminstration’s boosterism implies, but whether the deal was a good one given market conditions as of October 2008. Answer: not at all. The deal was lousy on its face, and it did NOT serve to advance what should have been the overarching objective, namely, putting the industry on sounder terms, say by using the leverage to extract key concessions.

Those concessions being accountability for the banks and transparency in the bailout. Never happened.

Finally, as you can see from the chart, the quantity of money involved in TARP was a relatively small compared to the entire bailout -- although that wasn't discussed at the time. However, by focusing solely on TARP, the Ds ratified the entire bailout process, which might have been as damaging as anything else they did.

Incidentally, TARP was passed by the Ds over R opposition. In that, the Rs were doing what something like 99% of the callers to Congress during the debacle wanted.

cwaltz's picture
Submitted by cwaltz on

Lambert

Can you remind me again who was in charge of the House and Senate when TARP was passed?

Surely it was those mean ol' Republicans because if it were DEMOCRATS that would poke holes in the idea that the two parties aren't operating in collusion.

I mean there IS a difference and all(rolling my eyes). The difference being that Republicans laugh at you to your face if you are not one of the top 10%. The Democrats just do it behind your back.

Those great ol' tax breaks we're going to be getting are going to come in mighty handy for when Obama the wonderous Demorat(not a typo) attempts his next trick of dismantling Social Security, a program that has kept 1 in 5 elderly from eating cat food. He's your friend though Lambert. Bwaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha

a little night musing's picture
Submitted by a little night ... on

He even broke off campaigning for Pres to make sure that no inconvenient regulations were added.

We covered that here. See for example.

Oh wait, is this some kind of a joke? My sarcasm meter had been off since 2006.

a little night musing's picture
Submitted by a little night ... on

I fervently hope that I can do so. But I mean, I hope I can do maths, and cook, and sew, and clean, and make things. Stuff like that.

I hope I don't have to work till I die, not in the sense that I'd have to sell myself.

Dammit, I worked hard and played by the rules. I did what I was told was the "responsible" thing to do. I put money into my IRA whenever I could. I diversified.

I am so screwed.

a little night musing's picture
Submitted by a little night ... on

One of the things I hate the most about the culture we live in is the almost universal disaffection with work, because we equate it with "work which is done only to make a living".

Fuck all that shit. We at Corrente should be able to redefine "work".

Or maybe Alexander Wat had the right idea:

Work is a blessing
How else could we deal with the fratricidal love towards our fellow man?
With those storms of extermination of all by all?
With brutality that has no bottom, no measure?

Submitted by gob on

Physical labor -- cleaning houses and offices and motel rooms, construction, farm work, and all that kind of thing -- takes it out of you when you're young, exhausts you when you're middle aged, and is next to impossible when you're old. At least at the level an employer demands.

I had a GED student whose joints were destroyed by age 35 by all the physical labor he'd done. Lucky him, he was actually quite smart, though unschooled, and was able to create alternatives for himself. But not everyone is so gifted.