The chart

#26
#26
My opinion isn't popular, and I recognize that, but in my opinion, TARP was a net gain for the country (and the world) because the alternative would've been far worse. If BAC, C, MS, Merrill, AIG, etc, etc had all fallen, our entire banking system would've collapsed. For more information, Hank Paulsen's memoir is interesting, as are the books "Too Big To Fail" and "The Big Short".

Unfortunately, I believe TARP was necessary and required so the end justified the means. Sometimes extraodinary intervention is required to avert a catastrophe and that's what happened.
 
#27
#27
obama has fannie and freddie spending off the federal budget, so it's made him billions by the cbo figures.
 
#28
#28
volinbham said:
You honestly think that this chart is accurate in the claim that Obama is only adding 1.4 trillion in new spending through 2017?
Click to expand...


I don't know.

But at this point based on the policy and spending changes made under both administrations any claim by the GOP that it is spending under Obama that has caused more of this problem than spending under Bush is categorically false.

And yet they make that false claim all the time.
 
#29
#29
Ok, so if Dems are so offended by Bush's spending ways, why do they defend this President and his spending?
 
#30
#30
HSVol said:
My opinion isn't popular, and I recognize that, but in my opinion, TARP was a net gain for the country (and the world) because the alternative would've been far worse. If BAC, C, MS, Merrill, AIG, etc, etc had all fallen, our entire banking system would've collapsed. For more information, Hank Paulsen's memoir is interesting, as are the books "Too Big To Fail" and "The Big Short".

Unfortunately, I believe TARP was necessary and required so the end justified the means. Sometimes extraodinary intervention is required to avert a catastrophe and that's what happened.
Click to expand...


And this is why I am not critical of either Bush or Obama or the Congresses for doing it. Even though there was surely a lot of inefficiency in TARP, they were in crisis mode and did the best they could. I really don't think it was all that political

Except for the TP types. I think they believed that the free market simply compelled that those banks and businesses fail for having made bad choices. And I think that is a sincere belief on their part.

The question has always been whether the downturn would have been so much worse by a banking system in collapse that it was worth the insult to capitalism to do it. Others know the answer to that far better than I ever will.
 
#31
#31
golfballs03 said:
Ok, so if Dems are so offended by Bush's spending ways, why do they defend this President and his spending?
Click to expand...


Obama and the Dems are currently offering to cut the deficit by $2.7 trillion. I know that some of the Obama proposals have even been built around some cuts in the health care reform plan, too.

From my perspective, Obama has been somewhat converted by all of this and is willing to cut. His speeches of late about this opportunity I believe are well taken. Ten years ago, touching SS and Medicare were both unthinkable. But people have been educated enough to be willing to talk about it and both sides say they are willing. As long as the TPers refuse to play ball on the Bush tax cuts for the top range, there is a real danger here (in fact, I'd call it probable) that we will miss this window until 2013, at the earliest.
 
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
Obama and the Dems are currently offering to cut the deficit by $2.7 trillion. I know that some of the Obama proposals have even been built around some cuts in the health care reform plan, too.
Click to expand...

the cuts are not real
 
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
Obama and the Dems are currently offering to cut the deficit by $2.7 trillion. I know that some of the Obama proposals have even been built around some cuts in the health care reform plan, too.

From my perspective, Obama has been somewhat converted by all of this and is willing to cut. His speeches of late about this opportunity I believe are well taken. Ten years ago, touching SS and Medicare were both unthinkable. But people have been educated enough to be willing to talk about it and both sides say they are willing. As long as the TPers refuse to play ball on the Bush tax cuts for the top range, there is a real danger here (in fact, I'd call it probable) that we will miss this window until 2013, at the earliest.
Click to expand...

you do realize the dem leadership is saying that under no circumstances will they cut SS and medicare right?
 
#34
#34
golfballs03 said:
i will say, Bush and his Republican congress should be to blame for their out of control spending too! they are a large reason why the republican party has been in shambles for the past few years.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true. LG and other liberals like to think that the Tea Party rose up because of Obama or the Dems. The failure of the GOP to govern according to their conservative promises was the MAJOR factor.

I will say though that Bush became much more liberal when the Dems took over Congress.
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
And this is why I am not critical of either Bush or Obama or the Congresses for doing it. Even though there was surely a lot of inefficiency in TARP, they were in crisis mode and did the best they could. I really don't think it was all that political

Except for the TP types. I think they believed that the free market simply compelled that those banks and businesses fail for having made bad choices. And I think that is a sincere belief on their part.

The question has always been whether the downturn would have been so much worse by a banking system in collapse that it was worth the insult to capitalism to do it. Others know the answer to that far better than I ever will.
Click to expand...
They should have fallen. The fact that they didn't is only the seed that will lead to the next, even bigger, bubble.

More importantly, if gov't had been the referree instead of a player then those companies could not have gotten "too big to fail". If they do not violate the letter of anti-trust and monopoly law... they certainly violate the spirit and purpose.
 
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
Obama and the Dems are currently offering to cut the deficit by $2.7 trillion. I know that some of the Obama proposals have even been built around some cuts in the health care reform plan, too.

From my perspective, Obama has been somewhat converted by all of this and is willing to cut. His speeches of late about this opportunity I believe are well taken. Ten years ago, touching SS and Medicare were both unthinkable. But people have been educated enough to be willing to talk about it and both sides say they are willing. As long as the TPers refuse to play ball on the Bush tax cuts for the top range, there is a real danger here (in fact, I'd call it probable) that we will miss this window until 2013, at the earliest.
Click to expand...

I guarantee if Obama would specify his cuts and offer to make them up front the TP would like that idea. If he offered to simplify the tax code so that the "rich" and influential corporations lost write offs and special deals... the TP would like that too.

Obama looked straight in the camera and confirmed what I told you he was doing. He wants rate increases NOW in exchange for unspecified and unguaranteed cuts later. Why is the change of rate vs simplification important? His buds like GE get special considerations in the tax code. They don't care if rates go up. The people who will actually have to pay more are the most stalwart opposers of liberalism and supporters of conservatism... small and medium businesses and their owners. For all the talk of corporate jets, he isn't going after guys like Soros, Gates, et al... the super rich. He isn't going after GE, Berkshire, or big banks. He's going after your dentist, the guy who owns the local McDonald's, the small/community banks who did not get hit as hard by the bubble because they weren't reckless,...

Obama IS an elitist and he is NOT going after elitists.
 
#37
#37
golfballs03 said:
lumping the bush tax cuts in there is bogus, because that actually led to an increase in federal revenue. that chart is only showing half of the picture. for dems, its the only half they like to acknowledge
heritage-budgetgrowth.jpg
Click to expand...

Where did it lead to an increase in Federal Revenue?

Your own chart tells a different story.
 
#38
#38
lawgator1 said:
Obama and the Dems are currently offering to cut the deficit by $2.7 trillion. I know that some of the Obama proposals have even been built around some cuts in the health care reform plan, too.

From my perspective, Obama has been somewhat converted by all of this and is willing to cut. His speeches of late about this opportunity I believe are well taken. Ten years ago, touching SS and Medicare were both unthinkable. But people have been educated enough to be willing to talk about it and both sides say they are willing. As long as the TPers refuse to play ball on the Bush tax cuts for the top range, there is a real danger here (in fact, I'd call it probable) that we will miss this window until 2013, at the earliest.
Click to expand...

It was unthinkable for a very good reason - they weren't and aren't the problem.

Obama is actually only fulfilling his function here. As the articulate leftist (sic) leader he is now paving the way to put on the backs of the ordinary citizen the cocktail party for the Welfare Dads. He is making a case (which by the way Bush and the TP'ers could never make) that the old and the poor should pay the bills for the rich.

This is his function.
 
#40
#40
IPorange said:
8 years versus 2.5 years of policy. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

There are other apples and oranges as well. The tax cut as an expense based upon some fixed level of revenue is ludicrous. The two war efforts don't seem to fit either if we're comparing the two, especially since Obama hasn't canned that spending.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#41
#41
utgibbs said:
Where did it lead to an increase in Federal Revenue?

Your own chart tells a different story.
Click to expand...

Unless you are blind... the tax cuts took place in that trough around 2002-2003. Revenue recovered very steeply after that.
 
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
You both need to read the chart more closely.
Click to expand...

You need to read and comprehend. To draw some equivalency we would look at the impact of Bush policies from 2.5 years into his presidency (projected forward) to those of Obama.

It is apples and oranges. BTW Bush sucked.
 
#43
#43
volinbham said:
You need to read and comprehend. To draw some equivalency we would look at the impact of Bush policies from 2.5 years into his presidency (projected forward) to those of Obama.

It is apples and oranges. BTW Bush sucked.
Click to expand...

Last sentence can't be emphasized enough.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
Less than $500 billion of Obama's bill is for non-stimulus spending. Bush's is about three-four times that, if my math is right.

And that is still excluding the Bush tax cuts.

I don't see value in blaming Bush for this, either. But I have no problem with Obama defending himself from the charge from the GOP that its spending under his tenure that has created the problem. Its just not.
Click to expand...

He's not defending himself from the GOP but rather the citizens that vote in the next election.
Currently he's making excuses for why things went from bad (Bush) to worst under his watch.
 
#45
#45
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top