jay_a2j wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Obama certainly didn't stop the bailouts from buying out the banks and auto industries, nor did he do anything to reverse it.
Contrary to what PLAYER believes, BUSH had his bailout and OBAMA had his. For some reason she wants to place the fault on Bush alone.
Anyone who has been following the news knows that OBAMA's bailout had nothing to do with Bush. I suppose it serves her purpose to make her party appear blameless. She can fool herself, but she doesn't fool me.
Well except that he has to do it because of the failings of Bush. Obama inherited this mess from Bush, the decision to make the stimulus and bailouts was Obamas but his hands were kind of tied on it.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Most signs do point to us recovering very soon, but at what cost?
The US government has too strong of ties to the private sector. It's disturbing and alarming. Not only has federal ownership and more or less direct influence over the banking sector, auto sector, and soon-to-be healthcare sector (that's a big maybe though) drastically increased, the government has placed a huge burden upon its future citizens for decades to come.
Once again, we've come up with a quick fix that's good in the short-term, and terrible in the long-term. I'd say the cost wasn't worth it at all.
The government ownership of banks and car companies will end in a few years when they are profitable and the government will sell them off. Thats just a short term fix, not a long term trend.
Also ask yourself this, what would the cost have been (short and long term) if we did nothing? Do you seriously believe this is a lower cost then the one that we face now?
jay_a2j wrote:
The "recovery" we are seeing now is temporary. We have succeeded in stalling the inevitable. The government is attempting to "throw money at the problem" and hope that it goes away. It won't, it sure hasn't helped the unemployment rate has it? This house of cards is bound to fall. We are simply waiting for the winds that will knock them down. So the financial situation we will have in the future will be far worse than we would have had if we had had no bailouts.
The unemployment rate is BETTER because of the stimulus. Ffs actually read some economic reports, the unemployment rate would be much worse without the bailout. Just because it has gone down in the past year does not mean the stimulus failed, it actually means that the stimulus has managed to limit the amount of jobs lost. Also, it is not "throwing money at the problem", it is directing capital at the places that need it most and will benefit the country in the long term most. Of course politics has gotten in some of the way, but the vast majority of the funds have gone to places that need it and will benefit hugely from it.
thegreekdog wrote:Titanic, I think you might want to look at what those companies did with the money they received from the government, specifically AIG. I also suggest you take a look at how much it costs the government to create one job.
Do I think the country would be better off? I'm not sure; short-term, probably not; long-term definitely yes. We've sent dangeous precedent.
I agree that a lot of the financial institutions which received the money were either overpaid or used it for their own purposes. The USA needed a much stricter bailout in that sense, with more oversight and using the money to buy shares at a knockdown price rather then a generous loan. Remember the original plan Bush put forward had extremely little oversight and it was the democrats in congress who forced the creation of the TARP panel. Not ideal, but better then the original plan anyway.
I think the bailouts and stimulus were definitely good for the short term (upto 4-5 years), and in the long term only if the correct financial regulation (Glass-Steagal, over the counter, CDS etc..) is implemented along with a restructuring of the economy so it can face 21st century competition from Asia and Europe. Also, I don't beleive it is a dangerous precedent as it has been done before and can be successful if implemented properly and followed through correctly.
