I'd imagine that the person was referring to the bank bailout and the way that the banks paid the US treasury back, as fast as they could and with interest... anything to get out from a potentially renewed regulatory terrain.
Of course, this utterly and completely brackets all other forms of costs, such as the collapse of the housing market, the effects of the recession, the damage to pension funds, the accelerated rate of the reduction and elimination of employee health benefits, the resultant local, state, federal and industrial cost-cutting, the collapse of the job market, etc.
When the US people are paid back for those things, then, maybe, the US people will have been partially repaid.
A
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Adam Proctor <proctorvt at gmail.com> wrote:
> The first question I would ask is: which bailout? The second thing I would
> say is, "Sir/Ma'am, there is no way to get back a sum total which is MORE
> THAN US GDP with interest. It's economically and fundamentally impossible.
> Read more here from my friend "Petrino diLeo":
> http://socialistworker.org/2011/09/07/the-16-trillion-bailout This is
> some
> of the best analysis around on the bailouts.
>
> -A
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Rick <cr70814 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > I heard someone criticize the Occupy Wall Street-ers for complaining
> about
> > the bailout a few years ago: "Aren't you aware that the bailout actually
> > returned a profit for the US taxpayer?" Can someone comment on the
> veracity
> > of this claim?
> > ______________________________**_____
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/**mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- ********************************************************* Alan P. Rudy Assistant Professor Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work Central Michigan University 124 Anspach Hall Mt Pleasant, MI 48858 517-881-6319