Geithner and More Money for the Banks

Reader Comments
Add Comment

There surely must be two sides to all this. Where's the other side?

The other side could be demanding accountability. This is not to say that after failed banks that go into receivership won't be bailed out with tax dollars.
I don't have enough characters to go into great detail so I'll simply provide a link that pretty much spells it out.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/U-S-Corruption-Runs-Rampa-by-Steven-Thompson-090421-440.html
and, to listen to Geithner explaining his credentials, or lack thereof, listen to the audio clip provided here.
http://www.freedomfromthepress.net
Opposition to our corrupt federal government and K-Street lobbyist does exist. We simply don't have the capital to buy up television and radio stations to get the messages out. Perhaps U2 and Willie Nelson could hold a series of pro-democracy benefit concerts to provide much welcomed funding?

Steven Thompson of WA @ Apr 24, 2009 01:21:38 AM

Geithner has more money for the banks?

Hooray! Glad it's his money this time and not the taxpayers?
Don't you just wish?

HillbillyBill of TN @ Apr 17, 2009 09:30:23 AM

Well, if we didn't bail out any banks,

and some failed, how much loss would we endure from guaranteeing their deposits via FDIC? How much loss to individuals from rising interest rates due to lack of capital to be lent? How much loss from lost taxes previously paid by the banks?
There surely must be two sides to all this. Where's the other side?
You can bet your bippy that most of the people at the tea parties have no idea what these answers might be. So tell us.

Muser of NM @ Apr 16, 2009 12:53:54 PM

Back to blog

Add Your Thoughts Title Comment 3000 characters left

About You Name Email State

Geithner and More Money for the Banks

There surely must be two sides to all this. Where's the other side?

Geithner has more money for the banks?

Well, if we didn't bail out any banks,

Capital Commerce

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

U.S. News & World Report

Money