Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal

[GH]

One cannot help but wonder if Warren Buffett does not have some inside scoop on this. I cannot see dumping 5 billion on BOFA without some kind of assurances.

[Arraya]

There is no way in hell BoA could have got federal money without a panic. If uncle warren comes in with his bathtub revelation, it can be spun as bullish – which is bullshit – but bullshit is what is needed. Transparency and honesty is bad for business.

[Arraya]

There is no way in hell BoA could have got federal money without a panic. If uncle warren comes in with his bathtub revelation, it can be spun as bullish – which is bullshit – but bullshit is what is needed. Transparency and honesty is bad for business.

[Arraya]

There is no way in hell BoA could have got federal money without a panic. If uncle warren comes in with his bathtub revelation, it can be spun as bullish – which is bullshit – but bullshit is what is needed. Transparency and honesty is bad for business.

[Arraya]

There is no way in hell BoA could have got federal money without a panic. If uncle warren comes in with his bathtub revelation, it can be spun as bullish – which is bullshit – but bullshit is what is needed. Transparency and honesty is bad for business.

[Arraya]

There is no way in hell BoA could have got federal money without a panic. If uncle warren comes in with his bathtub revelation, it can be spun as bullish – which is bullshit – but bullshit is what is needed. Transparency and honesty is bad for business.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]Yup. Buffett, a private individual, chooses to invest his money in a private enterprise.

A textbook example of capitalism.

Unless the investor has a conversation with that pseudo-President of ours – the one with the sorta muslim sounding name. In which case it’s gotta be some leftist plot.

We now know where some people get their news:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2011/08/26/bill-oreilly-can-warren-buffett-save-president-obama

[Bill O’Reilly] There is no question that Buffett is a brilliant businessman. And this is what makes the situation so confusing.

Yes, Bill, it can get confusing when you are trying to argue that one of America’s most successful and ethical capitalists is some sort of closet socialist.[/quote]

Pri: Uh, the full, and correct, term is actual CRONY Capitalism. Buffett has enjoyed a very select place at the table, and this is just the latest example.

You keep trying to obscure the facts with the familiar memes and tropes, using terms like “socialism” and “funny sounding name”, thus painting anyone who attempts a reasoned rejoinder with the brush of Racist Reactionary.

From Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-25/warren-buffett-to-host-obama-fundraiser-in-new-york-on-sept-30.html

Obama and Buffett “visit” about “jobs” whilst Obama is on vacation in the Vineyard, and within 48 hours, Buffett has assumed a sizeable stake in BofA, a bank that is inarguably in trouble. Moreover, if BofA DID fail, it could trigger an even larger problem, both domestically and internationally. Yeah, the fix was definitely NOT in. Nothing to see here, folks, move along and pay NO ATTENTION to the man behind the curtain.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]Yup. Buffett, a private individual, chooses to invest his money in a private enterprise.

A textbook example of capitalism.

Unless the investor has a conversation with that pseudo-President of ours – the one with the sorta muslim sounding name. In which case it’s gotta be some leftist plot.

We now know where some people get their news:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2011/08/26/bill-oreilly-can-warren-buffett-save-president-obama

[Bill O’Reilly] There is no question that Buffett is a brilliant businessman. And this is what makes the situation so confusing.

Yes, Bill, it can get confusing when you are trying to argue that one of America’s most successful and ethical capitalists is some sort of closet socialist.[/quote]

Pri: Uh, the full, and correct, term is actual CRONY Capitalism. Buffett has enjoyed a very select place at the table, and this is just the latest example.

You keep trying to obscure the facts with the familiar memes and tropes, using terms like “socialism” and “funny sounding name”, thus painting anyone who attempts a reasoned rejoinder with the brush of Racist Reactionary.

From Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-25/warren-buffett-to-host-obama-fundraiser-in-new-york-on-sept-30.html

Obama and Buffett “visit” about “jobs” whilst Obama is on vacation in the Vineyard, and within 48 hours, Buffett has assumed a sizeable stake in BofA, a bank that is inarguably in trouble. Moreover, if BofA DID fail, it could trigger an even larger problem, both domestically and internationally. Yeah, the fix was definitely NOT in. Nothing to see here, folks, move along and pay NO ATTENTION to the man behind the curtain.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]Yup. Buffett, a private individual, chooses to invest his money in a private enterprise.

A textbook example of capitalism.

Unless the investor has a conversation with that pseudo-President of ours – the one with the sorta muslim sounding name. In which case it’s gotta be some leftist plot.

We now know where some people get their news:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2011/08/26/bill-oreilly-can-warren-buffett-save-president-obama

[Bill O’Reilly] There is no question that Buffett is a brilliant businessman. And this is what makes the situation so confusing.

Yes, Bill, it can get confusing when you are trying to argue that one of America’s most successful and ethical capitalists is some sort of closet socialist.[/quote]

Pri: Uh, the full, and correct, term is actual CRONY Capitalism. Buffett has enjoyed a very select place at the table, and this is just the latest example.

You keep trying to obscure the facts with the familiar memes and tropes, using terms like “socialism” and “funny sounding name”, thus painting anyone who attempts a reasoned rejoinder with the brush of Racist Reactionary.

From Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-25/warren-buffett-to-host-obama-fundraiser-in-new-york-on-sept-30.html

Obama and Buffett “visit” about “jobs” whilst Obama is on vacation in the Vineyard, and within 48 hours, Buffett has assumed a sizeable stake in BofA, a bank that is inarguably in trouble. Moreover, if BofA DID fail, it could trigger an even larger problem, both domestically and internationally. Yeah, the fix was definitely NOT in. Nothing to see here, folks, move along and pay NO ATTENTION to the man behind the curtain.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]Yup. Buffett, a private individual, chooses to invest his money in a private enterprise.

A textbook example of capitalism.

Unless the investor has a conversation with that pseudo-President of ours – the one with the sorta muslim sounding name. In which case it’s gotta be some leftist plot.

We now know where some people get their news:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2011/08/26/bill-oreilly-can-warren-buffett-save-president-obama

[Bill O’Reilly] There is no question that Buffett is a brilliant businessman. And this is what makes the situation so confusing.

Yes, Bill, it can get confusing when you are trying to argue that one of America’s most successful and ethical capitalists is some sort of closet socialist.[/quote]

Pri: Uh, the full, and correct, term is actual CRONY Capitalism. Buffett has enjoyed a very select place at the table, and this is just the latest example.

You keep trying to obscure the facts with the familiar memes and tropes, using terms like “socialism” and “funny sounding name”, thus painting anyone who attempts a reasoned rejoinder with the brush of Racist Reactionary.

From Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-25/warren-buffett-to-host-obama-fundraiser-in-new-york-on-sept-30.html

Obama and Buffett “visit” about “jobs” whilst Obama is on vacation in the Vineyard, and within 48 hours, Buffett has assumed a sizeable stake in BofA, a bank that is inarguably in trouble. Moreover, if BofA DID fail, it could trigger an even larger problem, both domestically and internationally. Yeah, the fix was definitely NOT in. Nothing to see here, folks, move along and pay NO ATTENTION to the man behind the curtain.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]Yup. Buffett, a private individual, chooses to invest his money in a private enterprise.

A textbook example of capitalism.

Unless the investor has a conversation with that pseudo-President of ours – the one with the sorta muslim sounding name. In which case it’s gotta be some leftist plot.

We now know where some people get their news:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2011/08/26/bill-oreilly-can-warren-buffett-save-president-obama

[Bill O’Reilly] There is no question that Buffett is a brilliant businessman. And this is what makes the situation so confusing.

Yes, Bill, it can get confusing when you are trying to argue that one of America’s most successful and ethical capitalists is some sort of closet socialist.[/quote]

Pri: Uh, the full, and correct, term is actual CRONY Capitalism. Buffett has enjoyed a very select place at the table, and this is just the latest example.

You keep trying to obscure the facts with the familiar memes and tropes, using terms like “socialism” and “funny sounding name”, thus painting anyone who attempts a reasoned rejoinder with the brush of Racist Reactionary.

From Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-25/warren-buffett-to-host-obama-fundraiser-in-new-york-on-sept-30.html

Obama and Buffett “visit” about “jobs” whilst Obama is on vacation in the Vineyard, and within 48 hours, Buffett has assumed a sizeable stake in BofA, a bank that is inarguably in trouble. Moreover, if BofA DID fail, it could trigger an even larger problem, both domestically and internationally. Yeah, the fix was definitely NOT in. Nothing to see here, folks, move along and pay NO ATTENTION to the man behind the curtain.

[ucodegen]

[quote DomoArigato]Unfortunately, it didn’t cost them. The Fed gave the criminal banksters $16 trillion so they could cover their losses.

No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).[/quote]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?

[ucodegen]

[quote DomoArigato]Unfortunately, it didn’t cost them. The Fed gave the criminal banksters $16 trillion so they could cover their losses.

No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).[/quote]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?

[ucodegen]

[quote DomoArigato]Unfortunately, it didn’t cost them. The Fed gave the criminal banksters $16 trillion so they could cover their losses.

No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).[/quote]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?

[ucodegen]

[quote DomoArigato]Unfortunately, it didn’t cost them. The Fed gave the criminal banksters $16 trillion so they could cover their losses.

No one else who screwed up got anywhere near this kind of bailout. All of that $16 trillion went to Obama’s criminal bankster buddies like Lloyd Bankfiend (CEO of Government Sachs) and Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPM).[/quote]
Considering that our current national debt stands at $14 trillion (total for all presidents past and present), how do you come up with $16 trillion being given to the banks? Any facts or referring documents to back up your contention? Do these numbers factor in money that was paid back to the fed?

[Author]

Posts