And Obama made damned sure it was for nothing.What's pathetic was that he was correct. Bush had already decided. We were going in. Evidence be damned. We were going to recklessly spend American lives for nothing, making things worse.
And Obama made damned sure it was for nothing.
So you think that taxpayers should pay for the mistakes of businesses so that people can keep their jobs? Is this what you're saying?
It is not the job of our federal government to bail out banks. Please find me that where it is stated that is one of the federal government responsibilities.
Forcing taxpayers to pay for bank bail outs is not a function of society, nor does it keep anyone from harm.
Of course not, TARP was useless. No it is not the job of the government to interfere, nor is it the taxpayers responsibility to pay for the mistakes of a business. I don't know where you're getting these crazy ideas, but it sounds like you don't understand the limitations of the federal government.
fitting that you continue to post such responses filled with projection . Hint for ya, Bush is no longer president.No, or that was always the case. This was always up to the Iraqis. Your side just always avoids accepting responsibility for what you are responsible for, wasting lives on a reckless poorly thought out act of aggression.
If BushII had backed the partisan political theory many CONs espouse then yes the economy should have been allowed to drive off the cliff like it routinely did in decades past. Millions more of Americans would have been out of work as the cascade of business failures would have been far more wide reaching.
(course if CON economic philosophy was worth half a bucket of warm spit the 'invisible hand' would have stopped the bus before it got to the cliff and no CEO would have let his corporation engage in risky practices for short term gain) Remember those gems??? :roll:
As far as bankruptcy goes, the CONs pushed hard to limit that option as a loser's way out. Have you ever declared bankruptcy? A close friend did because of major medical bills even though he had pretty good medical insurance at the time. He was 300,000 in debt AFTER his insurance was done picking up it's part. He worked two jobs but finally gave in and filed. I NEVER want to go through that- EVER. (I don't think you do either)
Keeping our economy from tanking as bad as it did ROUTINELY in the past, a quick study of our nation's capitalism shows recessions and depressions as a dismally common rate of occurrence. Unbridled capitalism does harm a nation. I'm more of a fix the problem and then hang the bastards but when lobbyists can get regulations cut and laws past it is difficult to punish those who wrecked the economy without ruining the lives of millions of 'innocent' citizens.
Odd thing I noticed, the concept of 'innocent being harmed' in the CON world. Millions of hard working Americans would have their lives thrown into chaos and financial ruin by a cavalier attitude of 'punishing' businesses who's CEOs and major players have gold plated ejector seats and golden parachutes for just such emergencies.
I don't see allowing businesses to collapse as punishing anyone but those millions of Middle Class Americans who's careers are now ruined but not even a paper parachute from 'corporate', millions of Retired Americans who's 401K is now worthless, and millions of Americans who never earned a penny working for or investing in the collapsing businesses but now are out of work as the collapse ends the customers they relied on.
That's a trickle down Reagan never wanted to believe in....eace
And Obama made damned sure it was for nothing.
CON game- the Government should keep the economy stable by first not stripping away all the regulations put in place to correct from the last time the free hand of capitalism jacked the economy off a cliff and then by not allowing millions of Americans to lose their jobs because the same smucks who would never hurt their corporations (according to the CON capitalism primer) did just that for short term gains. (those CEOs and money managers should be charged with criminal misconduct but sadly most of those laws were stripped out)
It is very much the job of the federal government to 'bail-out' account holders, either if robbed or the bank itself conducts fraud. the FDIC protects account holders. Please find for me where the courts have ruled the FDIC is unconstitutional.
Society does in fact protect banks, jobs, homes, health, your loved ones- NO ONE can go it alone- we depend on ambulance crews (taxpayers are 'forced' to pay for them), firefighters (again more 'forced' taxpayer funding), but also the facets that keep this nation more than a cabal of individuals fighting over the scrapheap from other nations that do band together.
Of course the Government should step in (should act proactively to prevent market crashes from short sighted capitalistic greed) and prevent a massive collapse of our economy from hurricanes to derivative scandals.
I don't know where you get your concepts of governance- cut throat capitalism and a level of society that goes back to kill or be killed hunter gatherers... :doh
Chris, I agree with all of that, but at the time, panic was setting in, and our congresscritters and POTUS felt that they couldn't risk total economic collapse. What they did in the long run created a moral hazard, and probably was not the correct route, but they had to do something, and it was indeed effective in the short run - our economy faultered, but it fell short of total collapse.
I just wish that they had given more consideration to other alternatives, and moved on those alternatives much earlier, and had established proper regulation of our lending system prior to the bubble. The whole think was entirely avoidable.
It was for nothing as soon as the first soldier's boot touched Iraqi sand. Once we invaded, we were doomed to failure. You cannot force a way of life upon an entire population that does not wish to change.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?