quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I suggest you read up on what Obama's stimulus package entails (he made a speech last Thursday that I'm sure you can find on youtube or his website) - his plan is not to keep bankrolling financial execs, but rather to invest in technology and physical infrastructure as well as clean energy.

TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) ie. the bailout, is different from his stimulus package.

___________________
fb.
soundcloud.
residentadvisor.
release.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I suggest you read up on what Obama's stimulus package entails (he made a speech last Thursday that I'm sure you can find on youtube or his website) - his plan is not to keep bankrolling financial execs, but rather to invest in technology and physical infrastructure as well as clean energy.

Beside clean energy the rest of his package is just fancy spending for a bankrupt country and that will get them nowhere!

quote:

Originally posted by feelgood TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) ie. the bailout, is different from his stimulus package.

Yes, exactly.
And the TARP was not a product of the Obama administration. His plan has nothing to do with easing credit markets and bailing out banks.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Yes, exactly. And the TARP was not a product of the Obama administration. His plan has nothing to do with easing credit markets and bailing out banks.

He certainly made no effort to stand in its way.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...1Esc&refer=home

___________________
fb.
soundcloud.
residentadvisor.
release.

quote:

Originally posted by feelgood He certainly made no effort to stand in its way. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...1Esc&refer=home

He supported it. In fact if he was the president at the time, he would have came up with the exact same plan.

quote:

Originally posted by feelgood He certainly made no effort to stand in its way. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...1Esc&refer=home

Most didn't. When the markets lose close to 10% the day it doesn't pass, people get pretty spooked into getting the thing through. Don't say "if Obama were president he'd have done the same thing" - that argument could be applied to essentially everyone, both red and blue. I think Obama would have implemented with more oversight than Bush did, which you guys are ignoring.

The possibility that the government could make money off of some of the assets it is buying with TARP is another discussion entirely.

...if you're going to argue about his policies, make sure you're talking about the ones he has created.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Most didn't. When the markets lose close to 10% the day it doesn't pass, people get pretty spooked into getting the thing through.

That's a very poor argument and I don't know where to begin really so let's just skip how the markets are going to react on day to day basis.

quote:

Don't say "if Obama were president he'd have done the same thing" - that argument could be applied to essentially everyone, both red and blue.

I'm not sure what you gain by saying that. I think any other US president would have done the exact same thing. Yet that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

quote:

I think Obama would have implemented with more oversight than Bush did, which you guys are ignoring.

Who cares? TARP is fundamentally flawed and wrong in so many levels so yeah who cares if there was more oversight or transparency?

quote:

The possibility that the government could make money off of some of the assets it is buying with TARP is another discussion entirely.

LOL, at least you're funny.

quote:

...if you're going to argue about his policies, make sure you're talking about the ones he has created.

And those are?

quote:

Originally posted by spolitta I don't know where to begin really

Clearly.

Obama's biggest and first initiative as president is his $775b economic recovery plan. It does not involve bailing out banks. Stop confusing it with TARP; it is completely different and is not part of his administration (and thus not part of this thread).

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Clearly. Obama's biggest and first initiative as president is his $775b economic recovery plan. It does not involve bailing out banks. Stop confusing it with TARP; it is completely different and is not part of his administration (and thus not part of this thread).

I'm not confusing anything. He fully supported the 700 Billion aka TARP and he wants to be responsible for spending the $350 which is leftover from the $700. Not to mention that during his campaign he insisted that the TARP was the right thing to do. Now you want to argue that if Obama was in full power he would have done a better job of handling TARP in the first place and particularly he wouldn't have bailed out Wallstreet. Correct me if I'm wrong but what I don't understand is you've already stated in this thread that systemic risk should have been avoided yet you don't like bailing out wallstreet?

It'll be a great Hollywood story for America's democracy that Obama won but in the end he'll be a politician with his hands tied up by various corporations and other powerful individuals. Anyone that truly thinks Obama will save the world is delusional.

Obama is fucked, instead of trying to fix a broken economic system he wants to do run trillion dollar deficits for ever. What kind of change is that?

They have no money, China will stop lending them money because they need it for themselves now. They will have to print print print and then its all inflation.

They were worried about the market crashing and losing peoples pensions, so they came up with TARP and stimulus packages. But the inflation they create will make people retirement funds and pensions worthless.


The only change here is the color of skin.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I think you're oversimplifying what is arguably the most complex recession in history, depression aside. I agree that letting the economy function without intervention would be the most natural way for things to proceed, but the devastation that would affect multiple generations must be avoided. You can argue whether it's tax cuts or spending that's the best way to do it, but net net, the gov't has to cough up. There is simply no other way to free up credit markets, for one. (and the issue with credit markets is not that consumers don't want to borrow, it's businesses that need to borrow to grow)

Think of the devastation that would result from trillions of dollars of debt to future generations.


People have spent tooo much and don't need anymore credit, US is way over consumed. If you give Americans credit they will use it to buy Chinese products.