Thread: Another reason to vote for Obama

In March 2009, AIG announced that they were paying $165 million in executive bonuses. Total bonuses for the financial unit could reach $450 million and bonuses for the entire company could reach $1.2 billion.

I'm on coffe with international delight creamer. Wasn't sure Amsterdam's cloud floated south to France.

Well, we got 80% of the equity under W. How much more equity did we get under Barry? Best case scenario Barry gets 20% of the credit for the profit. Worst case he gave them a bunch of extra money for no additional equity, so 0% credit for the profit. But who I actually counting? Surely not dem Dems.


Sent from a galaxy far far away using Tapatalk

Ah theres the Civil spam, should have know I simply needed to jump into the muddy side of the forums.

Originally Posted by SovietDooM

I'm on coffe with international delight creamer. Wasn't sure Amsterdam's cloud floated south to France.

Haven't been to the Bulldog in awhile and admitting you're wrong is simpler.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Well, we got 80% of the equity under W. How much more equity did we get under Barry? Best case scenario Barry gets 20% of the credit for the profit. Worst case he gave them a bunch of extra money for no additional equity, so 0% credit for the profit. But who I actually counting? Surely not dem Dems.


Sent from a galaxy far far away using Tapatalk

So you agree the bailout was a good thing. Nice.


W threw AIG $85 billion and B threw them $97.5 billion. But that's irrelevant, all that matters is this had a happy ending. No need to analyze the positive, just be grateful for the bountiful harvest the lord has given child...amen.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

So you agree the bailout was a good thing. Nice.


W threw AIG $85 billion and B threw them $97.5 billion. But that's irrelevant, all that matters is this had a happy ending. No need to analyze the positive, just be grateful for the bountiful harvest the lord has given child...amen.

Actually, I still oppose the bailouts as they eliminate consequences of bad business for big business. It is totally contrary to true capitalism. Risk of failure is one of the things that prevent people from being total dumbasses.

As for credit, it doesn't matter how much who gave, it matters what they got in return. If W got 80% of the equity in AIG for $85B, and Obama got 0% equity for $97.5B (these are numbers you provided, so don't blame me if they are wrong) then wouldn't that make W a genius, and Obama an idiot?

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

No, everyone here always seemed to give Obama credit for it when it looked like a loss.

You personally have posted repeated reports about how W gave all the money, remember all the debt reports you posted? So no, not everyone. As I said, I thought it was a bad idea when W did it, a worse idea when O did it again, and still do think it was a bad idea. Not because there was a loss/profit, but because it sets a poor precedence. My only contention is just a week or two ago you, Trig, Fov, and some others were placing all of the bailout deficit blame on W, so if it looks like we are going to make a profit from it then give W the credit, not O. Simple.

Edit - typo

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Haven't been to the Bulldog in awhile and admitting you're wrong is simpler.

Your right, I'm wrong to vote him out for this. Let me see, 16 trillion dollar debt, projected 1.2 trillion dollar debt growth per year indefinatly, 1.5% GDP growth 4 years after the resession ended, his boot on the throat of coal, his boot on the throat of oil, $4 per gallon gas, projected skyhigh energy prices, record number of people on food stamps, man we are running low on corn why don't we bump the ethonal content to 15%.