You are just factually wrong on so many counts.
On the first point we are not debating merits just looking for a tendency to socialise our economy. So you seem to agree he did that in this case.
The government did it's constitutional duty to provide security and protection to tax paying citizens when it stopped the usury on student loans in order to prevent an entire segment of the population from debt slavery. Call it whatever you want, but it wasn't socialism.
Chrysler bondholders were held by all sorts of people. Retired people who had held them for a long time, pension funds etc. To generalize and call all investors speculators in my view is just stupid.
But investing is speculating.
Goldman Sachs took bailout money because Paulson made everyone take it. So the weakest players would not be exposed. GS had already done the deal with Buffet which provided $5 billion in additional capital.
So what. If it werent for Goldman Sachs and the other big banks bundling and selling toxic subprime mortgages and then betting against them thru AIG, we wouldn't have needed to bailout the big banks and AIG in the first place.
No read up on what TARP was intended for and get back to us.
"On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program that Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson, deems necessary to avert the financial crisis. This has allowed President Bush to extend the use of TARP funds to support the auto industry, a move supported by the United Auto Workers."
Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That concurs with what I said.
Again on healthcare, not sure if you are dense, think you are cute with silly answers or what. There are a number of articles saying that is just what I called it. A redistribution of wealth.
Your talking points are getting extremely redundant and meaningless. I meant what I said, the healthcare bill was a redistribution of health care, not wealth.
Again on the tax cuts, not sure if you are dense or what. Obama is not trying to eliminate all 3 trillion, just the money that goes to people over 250K. My understanding is that would cost about 35 billion in 2011.
Do you know what an ad hominem attack is and why people like you feel the need to use fallacies? Because you can't defend your arguments with facts and reason, thats why. So keep it up and there will be little doubt just exactly who the dense one is in this debate. It will be you.
Again you are sadly misinformed. There was enough regulation. However the regulators did not do the job. So how about following the old rules before adding more and see how that works.
No, you are sadly misinformed and you have just proven it.
Again I did not say he is a socialist. I am not sure what he is except inept.
Whatever. Our discussion is over.