Prev: Palin's book on top at amazon
Next: Was Pitts right?
From: Jack Hollis on 23 Nov 2009 20:11 On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:00:38 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: >I'm sure something did some good. I imagine the saving of AIG was probably >necessary. However the morass of pork and handouts to Democratic interests >that was the stimulus and the unaccountability with which TARP funds have >allocated have both made a mockery of reprentative government. As much as I hate to say it, the bailout was necessary. If AIG defaulted on its obligations, there would have been a cascade of failures throughout the financial world. It wasn't a case of too big to fail, but rather too important to fail. In 1929, the government let the banks fail and look what happened.
From: assimilate on 24 Nov 2009 00:10 On 23-Nov-2009, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > In 1929, the government > let the banks fail and look what happened. that was not what caused the Great Depression Jack. The economy was trying to come back when Smoot-Hawley was passed: nail-coffin -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 24 Nov 2009 00:18 On 23-Nov-2009, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > Which is pretty much the same collection of worn and cliched sentiments, > and appeal to the lowest common denominator, that Hitler used in the > Germany of the 1930's. Godwin's law! this thread is done and Clark loses! -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 24 Nov 2009 00:47 On 23-Nov-2009, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > There's no doubt that > it created some jobs, but they were jobs at the public expense. The > idea is to create private sector jobs that generate tax revenue for > the government. Yes in my state 1 whole job was "saved or created" at a cost of $2.29B in the 00th congressional district. It must have been Mobutu's job! -- bill-o
From: BAR on 24 Nov 2009 07:21
In article <4b09ec2a$0$5111$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:53:22 +0000, assimilate wrote: > > On 22-Nov-2009, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > >> You are unqualified to pass judgment on his economic policies. > > > > How so? Economics isn't rocket science > > Neither is rocket science, once you know how it works. Bert was trying > to argue that the country is in worse shape than it would have been if > Bush and Obama had not bailed out the banking industry. This, quite > obviously, is a complicated subject. While I guess the certainty you and > Bert share is nice, it's not the same thing as knowing the truth. Readem and weap: http://www.cnbc.com/id/34040009 http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662822,00.html |