Emphasis on "purported". If the Fed or Treasury's priority was helping regular people they would have helped people pay their mortgages. Instead they threw money at the banks to make them whole, while letting Main Street get foreclosed upon. You can say the banks were forced to take the money, and they may have said that in public. But it doesn't hold up to assert that the banks didn't need the money. It obviates the whole bailout.

But Drinkypoo's point is that they aren't selling the houses because they don't need the money because they are being propped up by the government.

Haven't we tried supply-side economics? What is to keep the supply side from simply pocketing the subsidy and continuing on at current prices?

But, but then you'd just be giving money to people! Some of them might not have been responsible! We can't just do that! Moral hazard! Whaargaarble!

Nope, better to just give, I mean loan, money to the banks. They're the responsible ones after all.

Heh, which basically means they were insolvent. They probably still are. And yet their executives probably think the poor are a bunch of moochers, suckling at the government teat!

It's not nearly that simple. Yes, the initial loans were paid back. But there were myriad programs for buttressing the banks, some of them secret. The Fed still won't disclose how much and to whom they lent money. The Fed engaged in massive quantitative easing for years, which basically translates into free money for the banks. They also maintain a zero interest rate policy which is another huge subsidy to the banking industry. They can do things as mundane as borrow for free and turn around and buy Treasury bonds. Sure, it's only .25%, but you can make it up in volume. The banks literally have a money machine, which is the only reason they can still be in business.

That's partly why they didn't let it collapse. Not only did they save a handful of connected companies, they avoided the blame for the downturn being directed at those responsible. If Goldman Sachs, AIG, BoA and whomever else had been put into receivership, their shareholders wiped out and their bondholders clipped, it would have caused immediate and obvious pain. It would have caused people to sit up and notice and demand to know how we got into this situation. The PTB can't have that because it would have exposed the shenanigans they engage in to make so much money.

As long as it appreciates faster than the interest on your loan.

Holy Hell, that's cheap! Where are you??

Oy, it's not tinfoil hattery. Processed foods have been shown to be less nutritious and healthy. Man has yet to improve on nature in this area.

Actually yes, that is the goal. Not to live forever, of course. But maintaining health into old age, and avoiding "lifestyle" diseases, is part of the reason I work out and try to eat healthily. Besides, being physically fit makes life easier (not that I'm some triathlete, but I think I'm in better shape than most people my age). I enjoy a little bit of ice cream here and there and still love chocolate. I just don't eat the entire pint or bar in one sitting. I hit the gym twice a week and pay attention to what I eat, that's all. It's not really a big deal, you just have to be mindful.

Nope, not a law at all. Healthy food can be quite delicious. But you can't get it out of a bag or a can. Doritos taste good because they are chemically engineered to be that way, and then focus-grouped to refine the flavor. Fruits, vegetables and legumes are the way they are. It up to the person to combine them in a tasty way.

I don't think Americans eat the way they eat primarily because of the flavor of the food. It has more to do with ease, convenience and price.

Isn't it nice that not everyone has to work for Shawn Anderson? He said his employees appreciate the schedule. You would not. That's fine. It doesn't make him wrong or a control freak. It's almost as if different people have different wants and needs and should work for an employer that fits their situation. Strange, eh?

What do you expect when you allow business interests, almost exclusively, to have their voices heard and set the agenda? There is an attitude in this country that seems to hold that the population exists to be employees, rather than businesses existing to serve the population. Its upside-down. But it shows how far out of whack this country's priorities are.

I sincerely hope this is a joke or a poke at free marketers. Because otherwise... really?

Kind of redundant, don't you think? ;-)