Really new Obamacare numbers

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Wrong JD. AIG lost a record 62 billion dollars in the 4th quarter of 2008. There would not be a need to give them 250 billion dollars in bailout money if they had assets. AIG had over 74 million insurance policies enforce all over the world. There is no way that they could cover that insurance with the losses they suffered trading unregulated securities.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/15/AIG...ist/index.html

Some of the firms you named, like WFC, did not go bankrupt and were not in danger of going bankrupt. Some would have gone bankrupt, like AIG, if it weren't for the bailout. Others, such as GM and Chrysler essentially did go bankrupt.

[Guest040616]

This is obviously an example of slow drying paint!

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Doove

Prove it.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate...loyment-charts

[Yssup Rider]

Oh. you're "proving it" with bullshit from a RWW blog? makes perfect sense! you blithering heap of parrot droppings.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Oh. you're "proving it" with bullshit from a RWW blog? makes perfect sense! you blithering heap of parrot droppings.

So you think the official BLS data (for U-6) are "bullshit"? Got anything more reliable for us to look at, dipshit?


http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

If is ok for the government to bail out Wall street after they lost all of their money trading unregulated securities, it should be ok to help John Dough on Main Street... Republicans are insensitive to the unemployed. The republicans did not have a problem giving AIG a 250 billion dollar TARP loan, the largest of the TARP loans that the government gave out. The democrats voted to extend unemployment benefits, the republicans should too.

Hey flighty, nearly all of that TARP money was repaid to the Government with interest. As a result, the US Treasury wound up making a profit on TARP. If we keep allowing the unemployed to collect benefits for up to 96 weeks, will they pay any of this money back?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

This is obviously an example of slow drying paint!

This is an example of DRIED PAINT ... All dried up ... and peeling one layer at a time.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hey flighty, nearly all of that TARP money was repaid to the Government with interest. As a result, the US Treasury wound up making a profit on TARP. If we keep allowing the unemployed to collect benefits for up to 96 weeks, will they pay any of this money back?

Why should innocent people who lost their job as a result of unethical and unlawful behavior of Wall Street (Brokerage houses, Banks, Mortgage Lenders) be forced to give the money back. They should not have lost their jobs in the first place. The Wall street meltdown created the recession. The unemployment benefits that they receive will just go right back into the economy.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Why should innocent people who lost their job as a result of unethical and unlawful behavior of Wall Street (Brokerage houses, Banks, Mortgage Lenders) be forced to give the money back. They should not have lost their jobs in the first place. The Wall street meltdown created the recession. The unemployment benefits that they receive will just go right back into the economy.

Now you're making a different argument than bringing up the TARP money. I have no problem with unemployment benefits. They normally last up to 26 weeks, which is probably the right duration. I do have a problem with paying them for up to 96 weeks when we are in the fifth year of an (admittedly Odumbo-stunted) economic recovery.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Why should innocent people who lost their job as a result of unethical and unlawful behavior of Wall Street (Brokerage houses, Banks, Mortgage Lenders) be forced to give the money back. They should not have lost their jobs in the first place. The Wall street meltdown created the recession. The unemployment benefits that they receive will just go right back into the economy.

Are you saying that all of the failure was criminal and none of it was out of sheer stupidity? You look a little red around the color.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

It appears that LL should give some serious thought on how to gracefully weasel his way out of the corner he painted himself into.

Perhaps he should consider turning himself into a cockroach and walk on the walls.

Speaking of disgusting bugs ....

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-80312

I picked CNN (for obvious reasons). BT .. would you prefer the Chronicle?

Hilary was in the White House then ... when the economy tanked ...

... hoarding shoe boxes of cancelled checks she could not find in her closet....

....after her husband was able to get his knob polished in the other end of the house ..

...without her knowing about it.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Now you're making a different argument than bringing up the TARP money. I have no problem with unemployment benefits. They normally last up to 26 weeks, which is probably the right duration. I do have a problem with paying them for up to 96 weeks when we are in the fifth year of an (admittedly Odumbo-stunted) economic recovery.

The right argues that the real unemployment rate is 15% and you don't want to extend
unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed? In December 2008 the USA was in the worst recession since the great depression of 1929.

[RedLeg505]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

The right argues that the real unemployment rate is 15% and you don't want to extend
unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed? In December 2008 the USA was in the worst recession since the great depression of 1929.

So which is it flghtr65? Is the "right" wrong about real unemployment being at 15%? Or is Obama right that "the economy is getting better" and we're about to have that long sought (Called for in Summer of 2010, then 2011, then 2012, then 2013) Summer of Recovery 2014? If Obama is telling the "truth".. why then do we need "emergency CRISIS" extension of unemployment benefits for the 12th time since Obama took office?

SO..which is it? Is the economy getting better or not?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

The right argues that the real unemployment rate is 15% and you don't want to extend
unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed? In December 2008 the USA was in the worst recession since the great depression of 1929.

More excuses and deflection flighty? Give it up.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by RedLeg505

Or is Obama right that "the economy is getting better" and we're about to have that long sought (Called for in Summer of 2010, then 2011, then 2012, then 2013) Summer of Recovery 2014? If Obama is telling the "truth".. why then do we need "emergency CRISIS" extension of unemployment benefits for the 12th time since Obama took office?

If you're too (willfully) ignorant to understand how both could be the case, there is no point in carrying on.