jkjsooner
3/31/2010, 05:03 PM
Serious Question:
I understand the backlash after the health care reform law. I'm not addressing that here.
What I am addressing is the rhetoric surrounding the TARP bailouts. Despite evidence to the contrary, this continues to be portrayed as a liberal plan for government to take over the financial industry.
Nobody liked the bailouts. I doubt there's many liberals out there who wanted the government to bail out Wall Street prior to the financial meltdown.
Put yourself in Obama and Bush's shoes. Economists everywhere were warning that our economic system had stopped functioning and we were in real threat of cascading collapses that could bring down the entire economy and lead us to another great depression. Leaders in both administrations (Bernanke, Paulson, Geittner, etc.) were giving dire warnings if we don't act immediately to shore up our banks. They saw what happened to Lehman Bros. and the consequences of Lehman's failure and it got a lot of people really worried.
And, by the way, economists tend to be conservative / free-market by nature and they were leading the charge. This wasn't even about Keynesian economics. It was about an immediate need to shore up our largest banks so that they don't collapse.
If you were our leader, would you risk these consequences?
I just don't understand how this has been portrayed as an Obama plot for the government to take over the financial system. Whether right or wrong, Obama and Bush listened to the experts and made the call.
And, by the way, all the tough talk about self resiliency and hard work does little for you if the economy collapses. My guess is that if we didn't have TARP many of us would be unemployed right now.
Can we at least agree or disagree on the TARP bailouts without stating that this was some liberal conspiracy.
I understand the backlash after the health care reform law. I'm not addressing that here.
What I am addressing is the rhetoric surrounding the TARP bailouts. Despite evidence to the contrary, this continues to be portrayed as a liberal plan for government to take over the financial industry.
Nobody liked the bailouts. I doubt there's many liberals out there who wanted the government to bail out Wall Street prior to the financial meltdown.
Put yourself in Obama and Bush's shoes. Economists everywhere were warning that our economic system had stopped functioning and we were in real threat of cascading collapses that could bring down the entire economy and lead us to another great depression. Leaders in both administrations (Bernanke, Paulson, Geittner, etc.) were giving dire warnings if we don't act immediately to shore up our banks. They saw what happened to Lehman Bros. and the consequences of Lehman's failure and it got a lot of people really worried.
And, by the way, economists tend to be conservative / free-market by nature and they were leading the charge. This wasn't even about Keynesian economics. It was about an immediate need to shore up our largest banks so that they don't collapse.
If you were our leader, would you risk these consequences?
I just don't understand how this has been portrayed as an Obama plot for the government to take over the financial system. Whether right or wrong, Obama and Bush listened to the experts and made the call.
And, by the way, all the tough talk about self resiliency and hard work does little for you if the economy collapses. My guess is that if we didn't have TARP many of us would be unemployed right now.
Can we at least agree or disagree on the TARP bailouts without stating that this was some liberal conspiracy.