Naa...he is more of a Stalin. He's going to just starve the country. He is already demonizing everything capitalist. Running the private sector out of business. Filling administration with racist, unaccountable stateist. All with the full suppost of Pravda. (ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS...)
Joke?
With one breath you blast him for bailing out private business and incurring national debt.
With the next breath you blast him for running the private sector out of business.
All of this in 6 months! Now that's what I call expeditious governance!
Would you at least make up your mind on what angle you want to attack? Unless, of course, you are only concerned with attacking him for SOMETHING, regardless of what it is.
Really don't know what you are talking about. Maybe I am just in a hurry getting ready for work that I don't see the connection.
If the government won't let banks pay back bailout money, that is running the banks. If govenment is firing, setting pay, and telling companies how to run that is not the free market.
I am not for bailing out or nationalizing business and, I don't see where I wrote that anywhere. It was a short post. He is running the private sector out with taxes, regulation, nationalizing, Cap and trade, healthcare reform, Food Safety bill, a no oil/coal/nuclear energy policy, etc..
Originally posted by Zindaihas You don't have to implement their ideas to be concerned about them. The point is there's a lot of extremists in that list. Stop downplaying a legitimate issue. I'm sure there were a lot of people who were as flippant as you when Hindenburg appointed Hitler to be his chancellor.
OMFG! It's a conspiracy!
Obama is Hitler, and he wants to round up all the white people and ship them off to concentration camps.
Run fer yer guns!
OMFG!
I was wondering how long it would be before someone accused me of comparing Obama to Hitler. Even though that's clearly not what I did. I compared the reaction of many today to what surely must have been the reaction of many back in the 30s when Hitler was named Hindenberg's chancellor. It was either greeted with a "Ho-hum" or with enthusiasm by so many people. Many of Obama's "czars" have crazy views, but their appointments are getting so little attention that most people are yawning when they find out about them.
Originally posted by Zindaihas You don't have to implement their ideas to be concerned about them. The point is there's a lot of extremists in that list. Stop downplaying a legitimate issue. I'm sure there were a lot of people who were as flippant as you when Hindenburg appointed Hitler to be his chancellor.
OMFG! It's a conspiracy!
Obama is Hitler, and he wants to round up all the white people and ship them off to concentration camps.
Run fer yer guns!
OMFG!
I was wondering how long it would be before someone accused me of comparing Obama to Hitler. Even though that's clearly not what I did. I compared the reaction of many today to what surely must have been the reaction of many back in the 30s when Hitler was named Hindenberg's chancellor. It was either greeted with a "Ho-hum" or with enthusiasm by so many people. Many of Obama's "czars" have crazy views, but their appointments are getting so little attention that most people are yawning when they find out about them.
Have you noticed the libs on this forum arn't actually arguing any of the points that I made clear in my original post? they can't reson with reson, thats why they have to try and devert the toppic with "oh noes Obama is hitler" they can't stand to listen to reson.
And this is slightly off my own toppic, but not only aligning himself with communist, he was mentored by one. {through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path.}
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
What is being complained about? The number of czars? Or just the fact that you don't like some of the things a few of them wrote 30 years ago?
I can think of 10 Bush czars just off the top of my head. One of which was a privacy czar to expand internet surveillance.
I know I'll get the "Stop comparing him to Bush, we learned that we shouldn't openly admit that we liked George bush because it hurts our rep even though we loved him.", but I don't care.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating czars. I think their more a waste of time and money than an actual threat to the populous as some of you tinfoil hat wearing seem to be insisting.
What is being complained about? The number of czars? Or just the fact that you don't like some of the things a few of them wrote 30 years ago? I can think of 10 Bush czars just off the top of my head. One of which was a privacy czar to expand internet surveillance.
I know I'll get the "Stop comparing him to Bush, we learned that we shouldn't openly admit that we liked George bush because it hurts our rep even though we loved him.", but I don't care.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating czars. I think their more a waste of time and money than an actual threat to the populous as some of you tinfoil hat wearing seem to be insisting.
Ok lets compare Bush
How many czars did Bush have after 7 months in office : 2
How many does Obama have: 42
How many of Bushs czars proclaimed they where communist: 0
How many of Obama's: 3
How many self proclaimed communist did Bush appoint: 0
How many has Obama apointed: 5
Was Bush's "mentor" a member of the communist party: No
Was Obama's mentor a member of the communist party: Yes
Did Bush ever go to a communist organized event: No
Has Obama: Yes
How many communist dictators did Bush get "buddy buddy" with: 0
How many has Obama: 5
I know now you want links to all of this, which if supplied (some have already been) you would ignore the facts all the more. And say dumb things that have nothing to do with the discution.
I know I know George Bush was satan and all of that. Listen I didn't vote for him, I didn't like 50% of his policies. But at least he wasn't brought up by a communist, at least he didn't go to communist events, at least he didn't apoint communist into his office in the first 7 months!
The acting cybersecurity czar, Melissa Hathaway, resigned Monday; she was, like Defense Secretary Gates, a holdover from the Bush Administration. online.wsj.com/article/SB124932480886002237.html
I really enjoy the "right" side shred any ounce of credibility they had left with their far out theories. Christ you guys are still crying about birth certifcates. I also have enjoyed watching them preach family values with their wives at their sides, while they have some Brazilian model stuffed under the podium blowing them. All of these people are the very same people that told us two years ago to support our president and country no matter what. If someone spoke out against the administration they were labeled as unpatriotic. Where is that patriotism now?
Left side "We need to blame Bush again today" Right side "We need to blame Obama and come up with something to discredit him"
Fixed that for you. Stop acting like all the democrats do is go to work and help the country and the republicans sit on their asses.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Naa...he is more of a Stalin. He's going to just starve the country. He is already demonizing everything capitalist. Running the private sector out of business. Filling administration with racist, unaccountable stateist. All with the full suppost of Pravda. (ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS...)
Joke?
With one breath you blast him for bailing out private business and incurring national debt.
With the next breath you blast him for running the private sector out of business.
All of this in 6 months! Now that's what I call expeditious governance!
Would you at least make up your mind on what angle you want to attack? Unless, of course, you are only concerned with attacking him for SOMETHING, regardless of what it is.
Really don't know what you are talking about. Maybe I am just in a hurry getting ready for work that I don't see the connection.
If the government won't let banks pay back bailout money, that is running the banks. If govenment is firing, setting pay, and telling companies how to run that is not the free market.
I am not for bailing out or nationalizing business and, I don't see where I wrote that anywhere. It was a short post. He is running the private sector out with taxes, regulation, nationalizing, Cap and trade, healthcare reform, Food Safety bill, a no oil/coal/nuclear energy policy, etc..
You just displayed my point. If the Obama administration intends to run the private sector out of business, why would he make any effort to bail them out?
Please provide a list of banks that attempted to pay back TARP capital and were not allowed to. The only stipulation the fed set was evidence that the banks not be in any jeopardy of failing from paying back their TARP capital. After all, it wouldn't really serve taxpayers to inject capital into a bank, then have the bank pay back that capital too early and fail, would it? Several banks have already paid back their TARP capital, by the way.
Naa...he is more of a Stalin. He's going to just starve the country. He is already demonizing everything capitalist. Running the private sector out of business. Filling administration with racist, unaccountable stateist. All with the full suppost of Pravda. (ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS...)
Joke?
With one breath you blast him for bailing out private business and incurring national debt.
With the next breath you blast him for running the private sector out of business.
All of this in 6 months! Now that's what I call expeditious governance!
Would you at least make up your mind on what angle you want to attack? Unless, of course, you are only concerned with attacking him for SOMETHING, regardless of what it is.
Really don't know what you are talking about. Maybe I am just in a hurry getting ready for work that I don't see the connection.
If the government won't let banks pay back bailout money, that is running the banks. If govenment is firing, setting pay, and telling companies how to run that is not the free market.
I am not for bailing out or nationalizing business and, I don't see where I wrote that anywhere. It was a short post. He is running the private sector out with taxes, regulation, nationalizing, Cap and trade, healthcare reform, Food Safety bill, a no oil/coal/nuclear energy policy, etc..
You just displayed my point. If the Obama administration intends to run the private sector out of business, why would he make any effort to bail them out?
Please provide a list of banks that attempted to pay back TARP capital and were not allowed to. The only stipulation the fed set was evidence that the banks not be in any jeopardy of failing from paying back their TARP capital. After all, it wouldn't really serve taxpayers to inject capital into a bank, then have the bank pay back that capital too early and fail, would it? Several banks have already paid back their TARP capital, by the way.
There you go. And I know you might have a hard time grasping this, but banks are not "the private sector" when people talk about "private sector" they are mainly talking about small buisness. Yeah that auto shop down the road, or the local clothing shop, those are the ones getting nailed, and hard by the Obama administration, with there new tax policies.
This all seems kinda hazy... One min, let me get my tinfoil hat so we can take a look at this.
I bet that in NAZI Germany, while they were loading people into ovens there were low IQ people standing around going "It's a conspiracy! LOL I have tinfoil hat! LOLZER! LOLER LOL!"
Just understand that you guys that keep using that tin foil hat line on every topic that happens to go over your head... you are displaying a sever mental handicap. Just a heads up. Proceed if you must. But try to understand your role as you carry it out.
Originally posted by windstrike1 I bet that in NAZI Germany, while they were loading people into ovens there were low IQ people standing around going "It's a conspiracy! LOL I have tinfoil hat! LOLZER! LOLER LOL!"
No, even the low IQ people that lived around Buchenwald understood what it meant when they saw trains pull in cramed with people in box cars, and plumes of smoke rise from the concentration camp shortly thereafter.
Look, nearly everyone in this country feels Bush was a douche-bag. Nobody liked him, he was as ridiculous as they come with authoritarian laws and programs. His whole administration was like this. Nobody is saying that, "Bush is better, Obama is worse." so please stop saying that people are just Bush fans whenever they criticize Obama. (Although there are some idiots out there ..... )
Fact is, Obama hasn't repealed the Patriot Act, or removed any of the authoritarian programs that Bush instated, in fact he is increasing most of them, he's getting more czars and is coming out in saying that he supports the corrupt military tribunals we've had over the past 8 years and would consider using it in situations other than Afghanistan (I don't know what that means?).
This is why I absolutely despise both parties. I'm sick of being called a republican hound whenever I criticize Obama's administration. They are the same, this is classic tactics with the two-party system. The republicans instate a bunch of crap and the democrats denounce them for it. Then as soon as the democrats gain the seat again, they don't bother to repeal anything or remove a single damn thing, they just continue "business as usual" and increase the programs behind the closed doors. Then the cycle repeats.
This is why I absolutely despise both parties. I'm sick of being called a republican hound whenever I criticize Obama's administration. They are the same, this is classic tactics with the two-party system. The republicans instate a bunch of crap and the democrats denounce them for it. Then as soon as the democrats gain the seat again, they don't bother to repeal anything or remove a single damn thing, they just continue "business as usual" and increase the programs behind the closed doors. Then the cycle repeats.
There you go. And I know you might have a hard time grasping this, but banks are not "the private sector" when people talk about "private sector" they are mainly talking about small buisness. Yeah that auto shop down the road, or the local clothing shop, those are the ones getting nailed, and hard by the Obama administration, with there new tax policies.
Three and a half months old? You certainly take the NEW out of NEWS. Get up to date and get back to me.
Here's the pertinent information. Banks were bailed out by US taxpayers. They knew treasury had the ability to buy stocks at a set price (within a 10 year window) when they took the capital. Now they want to buy back those shares, before the stock rises, so they can make the profit instead of the taxpayer. That may be worth bickering about. I mean, it is a socialized bank at this point, with the US taxpayers holding the risk. Being as it is, I think it's reasonable for taxpayers to expect a decent return on their investment, as well as a level of certainty the bank won't fail again. Otherwise, they have forced taxpayers to shoulder the risk while the bankers reap the rewards. Which is basically what they wanted anyway, socialized losses and privatized gains.
First, secure a bailout and put the losses on the taxpayers
Second, stay afloat by only lending to the top 15% credit rated
Third, stabilize and buy back stock warrants at break even
Fourth, open the gates and race toward profits BEFORE new regulations
I'd be willing to bet that that treasury will sell back all of the warrants, to any bank that proves it won't fail again because they repaid the TARP capital, when the stock gets above water, which will also mean the taxpayer won't make as much profit as they potentially could if treasury held the warrants longer. What this will do, though, is get the private banks out of public control. That's something I'm fine with, as soon as regulations are in place to assure they don't need another bailout due to further risky practices (and taxpayers make some profit, of course).
Comments
Joke?
With one breath you blast him for bailing out private business and incurring national debt.
With the next breath you blast him for running the private sector out of business.
All of this in 6 months! Now that's what I call expeditious governance!
Would you at least make up your mind on what angle you want to attack? Unless, of course, you are only concerned with attacking him for SOMETHING, regardless of what it is.
Really don't know what you are talking about. Maybe I am just in a hurry getting ready for work that I don't see the connection.
If the government won't let banks pay back bailout money, that is running the banks. If govenment is firing, setting pay, and telling companies how to run that is not the free market.
I am not for bailing out or nationalizing business and, I don't see where I wrote that anywhere. It was a short post. He is running the private sector out with taxes, regulation, nationalizing, Cap and trade, healthcare reform, Food Safety bill, a no oil/coal/nuclear energy policy, etc..
OMFG! It's a conspiracy!
Obama is Hitler, and he wants to round up all the white people and ship them off to concentration camps.
Run fer yer guns!
OMFG!
I was wondering how long it would be before someone accused me of comparing Obama to Hitler. Even though that's clearly not what I did. I compared the reaction of many today to what surely must have been the reaction of many back in the 30s when Hitler was named Hindenberg's chancellor. It was either greeted with a "Ho-hum" or with enthusiasm by so many people. Many of Obama's "czars" have crazy views, but their appointments are getting so little attention that most people are yawning when they find out about them.
OMFG! It's a conspiracy!
Obama is Hitler, and he wants to round up all the white people and ship them off to concentration camps.
Run fer yer guns!
OMFG!
I was wondering how long it would be before someone accused me of comparing Obama to Hitler. Even though that's clearly not what I did. I compared the reaction of many today to what surely must have been the reaction of many back in the 30s when Hitler was named Hindenberg's chancellor. It was either greeted with a "Ho-hum" or with enthusiasm by so many people. Many of Obama's "czars" have crazy views, but their appointments are getting so little attention that most people are yawning when they find out about them.
Have you noticed the libs on this forum arn't actually arguing any of the points that I made clear in my original post? they can't reson with reson, thats why they have to try and devert the toppic with "oh noes Obama is hitler" they can't stand to listen to reson.
And this is slightly off my own toppic, but not only aligning himself with communist, he was mentored by one. {through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path.}
Source: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/
He has lived with, been mentored by, has friendships with self proclaimed communist, and some of his apointments are self proclaimed communist.
Trust me, you don't surround yourself/get advice from people you disagree with.....
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
Laying the ground work for government control of the economy. Socialism here we come.
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
Lol i love you republicans, bravo bravo
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
What is being complained about? The number of czars? Or just the fact that you don't like some of the things a few of them wrote 30 years ago?
I can think of 10 Bush czars just off the top of my head. One of which was a privacy czar to expand internet surveillance.
I know I'll get the "Stop comparing him to Bush, we learned that we shouldn't openly admit that we liked George bush because it hurts our rep even though we loved him.", but I don't care.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating czars. I think their more a waste of time and money than an actual threat to the populous as some of you tinfoil hat wearing seem to be insisting.
The Official God FAQ
Ok lets compare Bush
How many czars did Bush have after 7 months in office : 2
How many does Obama have: 42
How many of Bushs czars proclaimed they where communist: 0
How many of Obama's: 3
How many self proclaimed communist did Bush appoint: 0
How many has Obama apointed: 5
Was Bush's "mentor" a member of the communist party: No
Was Obama's mentor a member of the communist party: Yes
Did Bush ever go to a communist organized event: No
Has Obama: Yes
How many communist dictators did Bush get "buddy buddy" with: 0
How many has Obama: 5
I know now you want links to all of this, which if supplied (some have already been) you would ignore the facts all the more. And say dumb things that have nothing to do with the discution.
I know I know George Bush was satan and all of that. Listen I didn't vote for him, I didn't like 50% of his policies. But at least he wasn't brought up by a communist, at least he didn't go to communist events, at least he didn't apoint communist into his office in the first 7 months!
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
The acting cybersecurity czar, Melissa Hathaway, resigned Monday; she was, like Defense Secretary Gates, a holdover from the Bush Administration. online.wsj.com/article/SB124932480886002237.html
Fixed that for you. Stop acting like all the democrats do is go to work and help the country and the republicans sit on their asses.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Joke?
With one breath you blast him for bailing out private business and incurring national debt.
With the next breath you blast him for running the private sector out of business.
All of this in 6 months! Now that's what I call expeditious governance!
Would you at least make up your mind on what angle you want to attack? Unless, of course, you are only concerned with attacking him for SOMETHING, regardless of what it is.
Really don't know what you are talking about. Maybe I am just in a hurry getting ready for work that I don't see the connection.
If the government won't let banks pay back bailout money, that is running the banks. If govenment is firing, setting pay, and telling companies how to run that is not the free market.
I am not for bailing out or nationalizing business and, I don't see where I wrote that anywhere. It was a short post. He is running the private sector out with taxes, regulation, nationalizing, Cap and trade, healthcare reform, Food Safety bill, a no oil/coal/nuclear energy policy, etc..
You just displayed my point. If the Obama administration intends to run the private sector out of business, why would he make any effort to bail them out?
Please provide a list of banks that attempted to pay back TARP capital and were not allowed to. The only stipulation the fed set was evidence that the banks not be in any jeopardy of failing from paying back their TARP capital. After all, it wouldn't really serve taxpayers to inject capital into a bank, then have the bank pay back that capital too early and fail, would it? Several banks have already paid back their TARP capital, by the way.
Joke?
With one breath you blast him for bailing out private business and incurring national debt.
With the next breath you blast him for running the private sector out of business.
All of this in 6 months! Now that's what I call expeditious governance!
Would you at least make up your mind on what angle you want to attack? Unless, of course, you are only concerned with attacking him for SOMETHING, regardless of what it is.
Really don't know what you are talking about. Maybe I am just in a hurry getting ready for work that I don't see the connection.
If the government won't let banks pay back bailout money, that is running the banks. If govenment is firing, setting pay, and telling companies how to run that is not the free market.
I am not for bailing out or nationalizing business and, I don't see where I wrote that anywhere. It was a short post. He is running the private sector out with taxes, regulation, nationalizing, Cap and trade, healthcare reform, Food Safety bill, a no oil/coal/nuclear energy policy, etc..
You just displayed my point. If the Obama administration intends to run the private sector out of business, why would he make any effort to bail them out?
Please provide a list of banks that attempted to pay back TARP capital and were not allowed to. The only stipulation the fed set was evidence that the banks not be in any jeopardy of failing from paying back their TARP capital. After all, it wouldn't really serve taxpayers to inject capital into a bank, then have the bank pay back that capital too early and fail, would it? Several banks have already paid back their TARP capital, by the way.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/133065.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124036906933742211.html
There you go. And I know you might have a hard time grasping this, but banks are not "the private sector" when people talk about "private sector" they are mainly talking about small buisness. Yeah that auto shop down the road, or the local clothing shop, those are the ones getting nailed, and hard by the Obama administration, with there new tax policies.
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
I love you all! You make my boring days in the office more bearable.
I bet that in NAZI Germany, while they were loading people into ovens there were low IQ people standing around going "It's a conspiracy! LOL I have tinfoil hat! LOLZER! LOLER LOL!"
Just understand that you guys that keep using that tin foil hat line on every topic that happens to go over your head... you are displaying a sever mental handicap. Just a heads up. Proceed if you must. But try to understand your role as you carry it out.
No, even the low IQ people that lived around Buchenwald understood what it meant when they saw trains pull in cramed with people in box cars, and plumes of smoke rise from the concentration camp shortly thereafter.
It was in the air.
Look, nearly everyone in this country feels Bush was a douche-bag. Nobody liked him, he was as ridiculous as they come with authoritarian laws and programs. His whole administration was like this. Nobody is saying that, "Bush is better, Obama is worse." so please stop saying that people are just Bush fans whenever they criticize Obama. (Although there are some idiots out there ..... )
Fact is, Obama hasn't repealed the Patriot Act, or removed any of the authoritarian programs that Bush instated, in fact he is increasing most of them, he's getting more czars and is coming out in saying that he supports the corrupt military tribunals we've had over the past 8 years and would consider using it in situations other than Afghanistan (I don't know what that means?).
This is why I absolutely despise both parties. I'm sick of being called a republican hound whenever I criticize Obama's administration. They are the same, this is classic tactics with the two-party system. The republicans instate a bunch of crap and the democrats denounce them for it. Then as soon as the democrats gain the seat again, they don't bother to repeal anything or remove a single damn thing, they just continue "business as usual" and increase the programs behind the closed doors. Then the cycle repeats.
Sigh.
White al-qaeda detected!
...Helicopters deployed.
...Threat neutralized.
...Freedom secured.
Three and a half months old? You certainly take the NEW out of NEWS. Get up to date and get back to me.
Here's the pertinent information. Banks were bailed out by US taxpayers. They knew treasury had the ability to buy stocks at a set price (within a 10 year window) when they took the capital. Now they want to buy back those shares, before the stock rises, so they can make the profit instead of the taxpayer. That may be worth bickering about. I mean, it is a socialized bank at this point, with the US taxpayers holding the risk. Being as it is, I think it's reasonable for taxpayers to expect a decent return on their investment, as well as a level of certainty the bank won't fail again. Otherwise, they have forced taxpayers to shoulder the risk while the bankers reap the rewards. Which is basically what they wanted anyway, socialized losses and privatized gains.
First, secure a bailout and put the losses on the taxpayers
Second, stay afloat by only lending to the top 15% credit rated
Third, stabilize and buy back stock warrants at break even
Fourth, open the gates and race toward profits BEFORE new regulations
I'd be willing to bet that that treasury will sell back all of the warrants, to any bank that proves it won't fail again because they repaid the TARP capital, when the stock gets above water, which will also mean the taxpayer won't make as much profit as they potentially could if treasury held the warrants longer. What this will do, though, is get the private banks out of public control. That's something I'm fine with, as soon as regulations are in place to assure they don't need another bailout due to further risky practices (and taxpayers make some profit, of course).
Here's an interesting read: www.fool.com/bank-of-america-vs-taxpayers.aspx
Question: Is Goldman Sachs part of the "private sector"?