Whether they wanted to be part of the bailout or not wasn't a question,
Because you don't want it to be.
I'm sorry for being terse, but it's statements like that which lead me to make statements like this (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1249717.html?thread=99598773#t99598773).
The banks can want anything they want to want. If the government is going to give it to them, how is that the bank's fault? If your little kid really wants that candy bar at the checkout line, is it his fault if you give it to him?
Disciplining bratty, spoiled children = bad. Got it.
Can you please point out anywhere where I've said that the banks didn't want to be bailed out?
Did you say word-for-word that they had no want of it? No. But a) you never explicitly admitted they did (until just now) and implied here (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1249717.html?thread=99596981#t99596981) and here (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1249717.html?thread=99594933#t99594933) that they took the $ under duress. I never said I was quoting you verboten, but rather summarizing your view as you chose to express it.
I was in favor of the bailout in 2008, I admit it. I bought the story hook, line, and sinker.
Well that kind of proves my initial point that the Tea Party opposition didn't have roots in the bailout in 2008 itself like they now claim, but only (coincidentally) materialized after a new President to their disliking took office. If you want to dispute the coincidence-ness of that timing, that's your right, but, well... there it is.
The difference is that the conservatives who bought the bailout line? We learned from our mistake.
Coincidentally, after it was too late to matter! Neato!
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/11 20:32 (UTC)Because you don't want it to be.
I'm sorry for being terse, but it's statements like that which lead me to make statements like this (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1249717.html?thread=99598773#t99598773).
The banks can want anything they want to want. If the government is going to give it to them, how is that the bank's fault? If your little kid really wants that candy bar at the checkout line, is it his fault if you give it to him?
Disciplining bratty, spoiled children = bad. Got it.
Can you please point out anywhere where I've said that the banks didn't want to be bailed out?
Did you say word-for-word that they had no want of it? No. But a) you never explicitly admitted they did (until just now) and implied here (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1249717.html?thread=99596981#t99596981) and here (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1249717.html?thread=99594933#t99594933) that they took the $ under duress. I never said I was quoting you verboten, but rather summarizing your view as you chose to express it.
I was in favor of the bailout in 2008, I admit it. I bought the story hook, line, and sinker.
Well that kind of proves my initial point that the Tea Party opposition didn't have roots in the bailout in 2008 itself like they now claim, but only (coincidentally) materialized after a new President to their disliking took office. If you want to dispute the coincidence-ness of that timing, that's your right, but, well... there it is.
The difference is that the conservatives who bought the bailout line? We learned from our mistake.
Coincidentally, after it was too late to matter! Neato!