what is he supposed to do? wave a magic wand?c'mon son!
At least not waste countless of billions of dollars on failed stimulus.c'mon son!
SJ, just imagagine how bad things would be had he NOT spent those billions! Thank god he did!he saved us
Looks to me like things are getting worse not better. A save is supposed to be a save, not a save don't mind it's getting worse.
Actually, doing something is not always better than doing nothing. Many of FDR's reforms during the Great Depression are credited with prolonging that slump. Sometimes letting a bad business go under and absorbing the pain is better in the long term than propping it up because "it's too big to fail".One could further argue that by spending 1 trillion dollars, the government actually taught the business sector that failure IS an option because you'll just get bailed out if you do.
In my view.
>> One could further argue that by spending 1 trillion dollars, the government actually taught the business sector that failure IS an option because you'll just get bailed out if you do.None of the politicians want to be equated with Hoover.
the george bush administration initiated the financial bailout (TARP) - not Obama. In fact, most of the TARP funds have been paid back to the government, with dividends. Further, several companies WERE allowed to fail, and not "bailed out".Every expert agrees that had the largest financial institutions been allowed to fail, the global economy would have gone into a major tailspin, results of which no one can imagine. We avoided that.
Conservatives and establishment Republicans are two separate things. Real conservatives are againt the Bush bailouts also.Has TARP been paid back?Were the bailouts necessary?
did you just link me to rush limbaugh? i was wondering why i got nauseous. please please please remeber these words as you listen to his show and read his website rush limbaugh has no idea what the the f&%$ he is talking about. He says that the TARP money was so banks would lend it out??!?!! He has no clue. none.and most of the TARP money that Bush gave to the banks so they wouldnt fail has been paid back.In addition, Bush was in office and the repubs ran the senate AND house for 6 years - and they did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to deal with Fannie and Freddie. NOTHING.AIG and the autos are different animals altogether.bottom line, obama is doing a decent job trying to clean up the $hit he was dealt, yes, it will take some time - its a shame that the "real" conservatives wont back him in ANYTHING he does or says. They are just making headwinds (or trying to win and election)
Ksil, attack the points, not the man. You did not respond to Rush's points. From Wikipedia, "Another important goal of TARP is to encourage banks to resume lending again at levels seen before the crisis, both to each other and to consumers and businesses." Did Bush try to rein in Freddie and Fannie?
banks were "underwater" on their balance sheets (like one would be underwater on their mortgage) and they were running into a potential liquiditiy crisis (due to deposit withdrawls) and a negative equity position - all while their assets(loans) were going bad!this is a recipe for disaster and the TARP was put there to prop them up so they would not show this massive hole in their balance sheets.Lending is a product of DEMAND - of which there was none (and is none) becasue we are in recession. The TARP was not given to banks to lend.Further, why in the world would a so called "conservative" want the government to tell private banks where/when/how to do their business?it runs against their principles!??!
Ksil seems to me you are avoiding reality when it is presented to your face.
Post a Comment