Astounding $9.7 TRILLION risked on bailouts!

[KingCondanomation]

Even normal spendthrift Democrats like Byron Dorgan are concerned.
The so called "stimulus" and bailouts MUST be stopped! Call your rep and end this fiscal madness. Massive amounts of debt with only the vague promise of it not being as bad.

"U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailouts as Senate Votes

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.

The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged to provide up to $5.7 trillion more if needed. The total already tapped has decreased about 1 percent since November, mostly because foreign central banks are using fewer dollars in currency-exchange agreements called swaps. The Senate is to vote early this week on a stimulus package totaling at least $780 billion that President Barack Obama says is needed to avert a deeper recession. That measure would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month.

Only the stimulus package to be approved this week, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed four months ago and $168 billion in tax cuts and rebates approved in 2008 have been voted on by lawmakers. The remaining $8 trillion in commitments are lending programs and guarantees, almost all under the authority of the Fed and the FDIC. The recipients’ names have not been disclosed.

“We’ve seen money go out the back door of this government unlike any time in the history of our country,” Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, said on the Senate floor Feb. 3. “Nobody knows what went out of the Federal Reserve Board, to whom and for what purpose. How much from the FDIC? How much from TARP? When? Why?”

Financial Rescue

The pledges, amounting to almost two-thirds of the value of everything produced in the U.S. last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up about 18 months ago. The promises are composed of about $1 trillion in stimulus packages, around $3 trillion in lending and spending and $5.7 trillion in agreements to provide aid. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGq2B3XeGKok

Forward this to all you know.

 

[Bonestorm]

Just so I understand correctly, because the Bush Administration put the government on the hook for 8.7 trillion in direct transfers to the financial industry, the stimulus proposal that is being voted on this week ($800 billion, roughly) must be stopped?

No.

 

[uscitizen]

OOPS! Damo did not want us to realize that Bush did it?

And don't forget the if we do not do this now the recession will get worse talk. Or was it if we do not do it now we will have a recession? I forget.

 

[Damocles]

OOPS! Damo did not want us to realize that Bush did it?

And don't forget the if we do not do this now the recession will get worse talk. Or was it if we do not do it now we will have a recession? I forget.

That's not Damo.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

LIFE INSURANCE HAS SPENT MORE THAN 30 TRILLION THIS YEAR?! SURELY THEY ARE ABOUT TO GO BANKRUPT!!!!

(using dano-logic and trying to equate insurance to actually spending money)

 

[Cancel10]

Where were you during the Bush administration? We witnessed unprecedented expansion of the Federal government. Of course, it is a given that Obama will make Bush look very conservative in retrospect, but that does not justify it. Bush was a fiscal socialist and, with exception to FDR, did more to increase the size and scope of the Federal government than any other President in history.

Guaranteed we'd be better off today had John Kerry won in '04. Not because Kerry would be a great President, but because of the resulting gridlock between he and the then-Republican Congress.

 

[Damocles]

LIFE INSURANCE HAS SPENT MORE THAN 30 TRILLION THIS YEAR?! SURELY THEY ARE ABOUT TO GO BANKRUPT!!!!

(using dano-logic and trying to equate insurance to actually spending money)

I think Dano understood, hence the usage of the past tense of the verb "to risk" and not of the verb "to spend" in the title. Surely you do know how to use the dictionary.

 

[Bonestorm]

I think Dano understood, hence the usage of the past tense of the verb "to risk" and not of the verb "to spend" in the title. Surely you do know how to use the dictionary.

I think you give him way too much credit. My guess is that he simply copied a Drudge Report headline but thinks that the government has spent $9.7 trillion. I mean, he uses "risked" in the past tense and includes the amount that hasn't passed congress yet.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Bush was a fiscal socialist and, with exception to FDR, did more to increase the size and scope of the Federal government than any other President in history.

Bush was a fiscal fascist whose main spending habit was anything that went to some kind of war machine. If those spending bills also had money going elsewhere, he really didn't care, though he at least had to give the presumption that he did.

 

[Damocles]

I think you give him way too much credit. My guess is that he simply copied a Drudge Report headline but thinks that the government has spent $9.7 trillion. I mean, he uses "risked" in the past tense and includes the amount that hasn't passed congress yet.

When including all portions of past and future you would use the past tense of "risked" to avoid sounding redundant and to fall within correct grammar rules.

Methinks you are being overly reactive to an article that accurately assesses the amount of the risk.

 

[Bonestorm]

When including all portions of past and future you would use the past tense of "risked" to avoid sounding redundant.

Methinks you are being overly reactive to an article that accurately assesses the amount of the risk.

1) Precision isn't redundancy.

2) I'm simply being precise.

 

[Damocles]

1) Precision isn't redundancy.

2) I'm simply being precise.

However, it is not incorrect grammatically. You are being overly reactive, not "precise". Precision requires that you first be correct. Your assessment that one would not use the past tense was not correct.

 

[Bonestorm]

However, it is not incorrect grammatically. You are being overly reactive, not "precise". Precision requires that you first be correct. Your assessment that one would not use the past tense was not correct.

Actually, it is not proper to use the past tense to describe something that has not happened yet.

 

[Damocles]

Actually, it is not proper to use the past tense to describe something that has not happened yet.

Wrong again, and disingenuous, it's almost as if you can't read posts that exist on the same thread if they show you to be a hack. If you are describing an amount that is both in the past as well as current or future you would use the past passive participle.

For example:

If I have bought $20 of a stock, and have an order on the table for tomorrow to purchase another $40, I would say, "I have risked $60", it doesn't matter that $40 has not yet been spent and could be canceled. At this time I have risked (past passive participle) the money.

 

[Bonestorm]

Wrong again, and disingenuous, it's almost as if you can't read posts that exist on the same thread if they show you to be a hack. If you are describing an amount that is both in the past as well as current or future you would use the past passive participle.

For example:

If I have bought $20 of a stock, and have an order on the table for tomorrow to purchase another $40, I would say, "I have risked $60", it doesn't matter that $40 has not yet been spent and could be canceled. At this time I have risked (past passive participle) the money.

That's not the past passive. You don't seem to understand the passive voice (moreover, what that has to do with whether it is appropriate to describe something that hasn't happened yet in the past tense is beyond me).

And your example is disingenuous. Congress hasn't passed the bill yet. In your example you have already placed the order. Congress hasn't "placed the order." You may have risked $60, but Congress and the US government hasn't "risked" $9.7 trillion.

 

[Damocles]

That's not the past passive. You don't seem to understand the passive voice (moreover, what that has to do with whether it is appropriate to describe something that hasn't happened yet in the past tense is beyond me).

And your example is disingenuous. Congress hasn't passed the bill yet. In your example you have already placed the order. Congress hasn't "placed the order." You may have risked $60, but Congress and the US government hasn't "risked" $9.7 trillion.

It is past passive.

"Have spent", or "Have risked" is past passive. (I think he get's confused because the "to be" portion is assumed in the phrase here. "Have (been) spent", and "have (been) risked"... )

And Congress has the "order on the table" enough to be able to add the figure into the equation.

Disingenuous is pretending that it was somehow "incorrect" for him to use the past tense in the title. You were wrong and don't like to admit it, I understand that.

Whomever wrote the article clearly understood, first, the difference between spent and risked (watermark's objection) and, secondly, what tense to use when describing an amount that includes both the amount already risked (not spent) and what has been "ordered"...

 

[Onceler]

"You were wrong and don't like to admit it, I understand that"

LOL

Of course you do.

 

[Damocles]

"You were wrong and don't like to admit it, I understand that"

LOL

Of course you do.

I am sorry you leaped to defend an incorrect statement by Watermark.

Watermark dorked off about the difference between spent and "insured". We find, just in the title alone that Watermark was wrong. That "risked" does not in fact mean "spent".

Then you went off about the tense of a verb, and were shown to be incorrect yet continue on about how "wrong" the author of the article was because you don't want to admit that.

I will say, it would also be grammatically correct to state them separately, however when including them together you use the past tense as I have showed.

 

[Bonestorm]

It is past passive.

"Have spent", or "Have risked" is past passive. (I think he get's confused because the "to be" portion is assumed in the phrase here. "Have been spent", and "have been risked"... )

And Congress has the "order on the table" enough to be able to add the figure into the equation.

Disingenuous is pretending that it was somehow "incorrect" for him to use the past tense in the title. You were wrong and don't like to admit it, I understand that.

The title of the post is incorrect. The first sentence of the article is correct.

The bolded portion is where you have gone wrong.

By the way, there is no past passive participle in this since the subject it clearly identified ("I"). "The money was risked" is the passive form:

If I have bought $20 of a stock, and have an order on the table for tomorrow to purchase another $40, I would say, "I have risked $60", it doesn't matter that $40 has not yet been spent and could be canceled. At this time I have risked (past passive participle) the money.

 

[uscitizen]

That's not Damo.

OOPS! on me, just one key over.