QE4Ever!

[Olde Europe]

Under Obama just as now, the rich are doing very well while to poor falls further behind.

Thanks for not even trying to pretend you had a counter to my argument. That's ... something.

You have nothing to counter with. Obama had an amazing chance to set things right. He had the White House, the House and a large majority in the Senate.

He blew it. Well, from my point of view he blew it. In hindsight it turned out he was simply who he was.

Yeah, you retreated from every claim you made after I shot it down. From the much condemned QE to the allegedly equal economies that weren't, we've now arrived at the fate of the poor, and the "things" President Obama could have set right, but didn't. "Things", I tells ya.

Frankly, did you ever find any buyers for that bullshit you are selling in your neck of the woods? Because, quite frankly, if you mistook Obama for a savior to right the "things" you thought should be righted, and fell on your nose with your belief, that's on you. If, to be slightly more specific, you thought Obama would be a revolutionary, changing the way in which the American plutocracy is being run, and to lift everyone out of poverty, and he'd have, even in 2009, a solid majority in Congress behind these revolutionary aims, you are plainly, patently delusional.

 

[pknopp]

Under Obama just as now, the rich are doing very well while to poor falls further behind.

Thanks for not even trying to pretend you had a counter to my argument. That's ... something.

You have nothing to counter with. Obama had an amazing chance to set things right. He had the White House, the House and a large majority in the Senate.

He blew it. Well, from my point of view he blew it. In hindsight it turned out he was simply who he was.

Yeah, you retreated from every claim you made after I shot it down. From the much condemned QE to the allegedly equal economies that weren't, we've now arrived at the fate of the poor, and the "things" President Obama could have set right, but didn't. "Things", I tells ya.

Frankly, did you ever find any buyers for that bullshit you are selling in your neck of the woods? Because, quite frankly, if you mistook Obama for a savior to right the "things" you thought should be righted, and fell on your nose with your belief, that's on you. If, to be slightly more specific, you thought Obama would be a revolutionary, changing the way in which the American plutocracy is being run, and to lift everyone out of poverty, and he'd have, even in 2009, a solid majority in Congress behind these revolutionary aims, you are plainly, patently delusional.

Nope. I just didn't expect to see him bend over for wall street.

Did I find others who were as dissapointed? Yes, it's why Trump won. If President Obama had been the person Candidate Obama said he would be, there would be no President Trump today.

 

[Olde Europe]

Nope. I just didn't expect to see him bend over for wall street.

Did I find others who were as dissapointed? Yes, it's why Trump won. If President Obama had been the person Candidate Obama said he would be, there would be no President Trump today.

Now you are plainly starting to bore me. Jumping from the much maligned QE to the equal economies that weren't, arriving at the savior who could have fixed "things" but didn't, we now get President Obama to "bend over for wall street" - but you couldn't explain what that means if your life depended on it. The reason for that is, your knowledge is as shallow as a piss puddle, and your desire to condemn is not matched by a desire to learn exactly for what he deserves condemnation.

If you have anything specific, best with a link, to bring forward, go ahead. Otherwise, shove it.

 

[Lesh]

Nah. He had 58 or 59 votes in the Senate for 2 years, IIRC.

In terms of passing legislation...51 votes is no different than 59. Ya know what number matters dumbass?

60. And the Dems had THAT number for about six weeks

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nah. He had 58 or 59 votes in the Senate for 2 years, IIRC.

In terms of passing legislation...51 votes is no different than 59. Ya know what number matters dumbass?

60. And the Dems had THAT number for about six weeks

In terms of passing legislation...51 votes is no different than 59.

Poor, weak Obama. 59 Senators and 257 in the House, still couldn't get anything done.

 

[pknopp]

Nope. I just didn't expect to see him bend over for wall street.

Did I find others who were as dissapointed? Yes, it's why Trump won. If President Obama had been the person Candidate Obama said he would be, there would be no President Trump today.

Now you are plainly starting to bore me. Jumping from the much maligned QE to the equal economies that weren't, arriving at the savior who could have fixed "things" but didn't, we now get President Obama to "bend over for wall street" - but you couldn't explain what that means if your life depended on it. The reason for that is, your knowledge is as shallow as a piss puddle, and your desire to condemn is not matched by a desire to learn exactly for what he deserves condemnation.

If you have anything specific, best with a link, to bring forward, go ahead. Otherwise, shove it.

1. He promised to address the financial bigwigs that broke our laws. He did nothing. He actually did the opposite.

How Obama's Failure To Prosecute Wall Street Set The Stage For Trump’s Win | HuffPost

Obama's Big Lie - CounterPunch.org

Should I start there? This could take weeks.

 

[pknopp]

Nah. He had 58 or 59 votes in the Senate for 2 years, IIRC.

In terms of passing legislation...51 votes is no different than 59. Ya know what number matters dumbass?

60. And the Dems had THAT number for about six weeks

In terms of passing legislation...51 votes is no different than 59.

Poor, weak Obama. 59 Senators and 257 in the House, still couldn't get anything done.

He didn't try.

 

[Lesh]

Poor, weak Obama. 59 Senators and 257 in the House, still couldn't get anything done.

Idiot Trumpers have no idea how the Senate works.

Again...having 59 votes is no different than having 51

 

[sparky]

Fed repo interventions take in Treasury and mortgage securities from eligible banks in what is effectively a loan of central bank cash, collateralized by dealer-owned bonds.

this is a tad over my head, can anyone 'splain?


~S~

 

[Mac1958]

I hope Deficit Donald has the courage to at least tweet a thank you to the Fed!

Huge tax cuts.

Huge spending increases.

Huge Fed buy-in.

Trumpian Hyper-Keynesianism. Holy crap, that's too many syllables. We'll need to come up with a new term for this fiscal madness.
.

 

[sparky]

Holy crap, that's too many syllables

jesus Mac....~S~

 

[sparky]

so i'm confused....the Fed is giving something fundamentally worthless from our Treasury to the banks, and guaranteeing it with something equally worthless?

~S~

 

[Mac1958]

...

 

[Olde Europe]

so i'm confused....the Fed is giving something fundamentally worthless from our Treasury to the banks, and guaranteeing it with something equally worthless?

~S~

Let me try. The Fed is handing the banks something of worth (essentially cash) and accepts as collateral something essentially worthless (bonds trading far below their nominal worth), or with no market value at all (no one wants to buy this shit at that time). That's the whole point of "injecting liquidity" into the markets. At least, that's what it was at the heyday of the bank bailout.

Goes without saying, if you accepted a loan and offered something worthless as collateral, you'd either be laughed out of the bank, or be prosecuted for fraud.

 

[sparky]

so i'm confused....the Fed is giving something fundamentally worthless from our Treasury to the banks, and guaranteeing it with something equally worthless?

~S~

Let me try. The Fed is handing the banks something of worth (essentially cash) and accepts as collateral something essentially worthless (bonds trading far below their nominal worth), or with no market value at all (no one wants to buy this shit at that time). That's the whole point of "injecting liquidity" into the markets. At least, that's what it was at the heyday of the bank bailout.

Goes without saying, if you accepted a loan and offered something worthless as collateral, you'd either be laughed out of the bank, or be prosecuted for fraud.

Thx Olde one

If i'm reading right, the Fed (private institution of banks) are taking funds out of the US treasury (tax $$$ ???) , to give to private banks to 'stay afloat' here?

~S~

 

[Olde Europe]

Thx Olde one

If i'm reading right, the Fed (private institution of banks) are taking funds out of the US treasury (tax $$$ ???) , to give to private banks to 'stay afloat' here?

~S~

You're welcome, Sparkster. It's mere book money, also known as "printing money", inflating the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, and has nothing to do with tax dollars. As far as my understanding goes... G5000 sure can explain it far better.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Poor, weak Obama. 59 Senators and 257 in the House, still couldn't get anything done.

Idiot Trumpers have no idea how the Senate works.

Again...having 59 votes is no different than having 51

So nothing has ever gotten done unless one party had 60 votes?
Idiot Lesh has no idea how government works.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

so i'm confused....the Fed is giving something fundamentally worthless from our Treasury to the banks, and guaranteeing it with something equally worthless?

~S~

the Fed is giving something fundamentally worthless from our Treasury to the banks,

Nope. The Fed is giving a reserve balance, created from thin air (not from the Treasury), in exchange for US Treasury securities or guaranteed MBS. The opposite of worthless. The swap is reversed the next day. The Fed earns a bit of interest on the overnight loan.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

so i'm confused....the Fed is giving something fundamentally worthless from our Treasury to the banks, and guaranteeing it with something equally worthless?

~S~

Let me try. The Fed is handing the banks something of worth (essentially cash) and accepts as collateral something essentially worthless (bonds trading far below their nominal worth), or with no market value at all (no one wants to buy this shit at that time). That's the whole point of "injecting liquidity" into the markets. At least, that's what it was at the heyday of the bank bailout.

Goes without saying, if you accepted a loan and offered something worthless as collateral, you'd either be laughed out of the bank, or be prosecuted for fraud.

The Fed is handing the banks something of worth (essentially cash) and accepts as collateral something essentially worthless (bonds trading far below their nominal worth), or with no market value at all (no one wants to buy this shit at that time).

You're wrong.
None of the bonds the Fed accepts is worthless. All high quality stuff that pays interest as contracted.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

so i'm confused....the Fed is giving something fundamentally worthless from our Treasury to the banks, and guaranteeing it with something equally worthless?

~S~

Let me try. The Fed is handing the banks something of worth (essentially cash) and accepts as collateral something essentially worthless (bonds trading far below their nominal worth), or with no market value at all (no one wants to buy this shit at that time). That's the whole point of "injecting liquidity" into the markets. At least, that's what it was at the heyday of the bank bailout.

Goes without saying, if you accepted a loan and offered something worthless as collateral, you'd either be laughed out of the bank, or be prosecuted for fraud.

Thx Olde one

If i'm reading right, the Fed (private institution of banks) are taking funds out of the US treasury (tax $$$ ???) , to give to private banks to 'stay afloat' here?

~S~

Not even close.