Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not an expert on fiscal policy, but the few pundits who have been predicting the financial collapse, advised against the government bailout.
Obama, from what I remember what was reported in the news, made phone calls so that the last bailout bill was passed....
I googled the first bailout and this came up:
Obama was pleased that, at first reports, his basic goals for the package were included: "The issue of making sure that we had strong oversight; the insistence that taxpayers share in the gains (if there are any) when the market recovers; the insistence that homeowners get additional relief so that there's some reciprocity - if in fact we're bailing out or helping banks, they in turn have to help rework mortgages for people who are potentially facing foreclosure; and the final thing, the issue of executive compensation, making sure that taxpayer money is not going to pad bonuses or golden parachutes.
"It appears that those principles have all been incorporated into the core agreement. And I'm going to be reviewing the language over the next day to make sure that those provisions actually stick."
Is been 3 months plus after the bailout and what happened?
Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.
Today in the news it says: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide
President Barack Obama’s economic team is pushing to complete a bank-rescue plan that can be twinned with the $825 billion stimulus package being negotiated with Congress to alleviate the rapidly deepening financial crisis.
Good luck to all the fools that think Obama will save the nation with a bailout. The only people who benefit from the bailout are the bankers, and clearly they seem to be Obama's new friends.
Oh...and while we are at it: Live-Blogging the Geithner Confirmation Hearing - DealBook Blog - NYTimes.com Timothy F. Geithner, President Obama’s nominee to be Treasury secretary, testified before the Senate Finance Committee at his confirmation hearing on Wednesday. As president of the New York Federal Reserve since 2003, Mr. Geithner has been a central player in building the vast bailout plans that the government has extended to Wall Street firms and other troubled financial institutions, such as the giant insurer American International Group. After his nomination, it was disclosed that Mr. Geithner failed to pay more than $34,000 in taxes for Social Security and Medicare when he was a senior official at the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2003, including a small payment in 2004 after he left.
He ran the most efficient campaign in the last couple of decades.
He had campaign managers to actually run the thing. And raising something like half a billion dollars will do wonders for any campaign. Hell, you could take Corkey from Life Goes On, give him $500,000,000 and he could probably put up a respectable showing in a national election.
Regardless, that is what you're basing your high expectations on? Instead of doing his job as a Senator, he spent the last 2 years running for president?
What are you basing this on? Obama's extensive executive record?
The truth is that we have no idea how Obama will govern, because he's never governed anything before in his life. We know what he says, but in politics, as in life, actions are more important than words.
What am I basing this on? Where have you been for the last 8 years on vacation, drinking some potent koolaid? I am basing this on Bush and his Administrations 8 years of failed policies as most "Thinking" Americans and the World knows. Yes, Bush does have a track record. His track record will be his 8 years of documented failures, history will show.
What am I basing this on? Where have you been for the last 8 years on vacation, drinking some potent koolaid? I am basing this on Bush and his Administrations 8 years of failed policies as most "Thinking" Americans and the World knows. Yes, Bush does have a track record. His track record will be his 8 years of documented failures, history will show.
Um...what now?
You know that Obama is going to be a success...because...Bush was a failure?
Regardless, that is what you're basing your high expectations on? Instead of doing his job as a Senator, he spent the last 2 years running for president?
I could be wrong about this, but I think the election is over and decided. Barack Obama is President...time to call it a day.
As to qualifications, nobody is qualified to be President upon starting their first term, simply because there isn't any other job in the United States remotely like it. So you can't say that Obama was any worse off at Inauguration Day than anyone else. And that goes for your recently deposed hero, as well.
I could be wrong about this, but I think the election is over and decided. Barack Obama is President...time to call it a day.
I'm clearly not disputing that.
Quote:
As to qualifications, nobody is qualified to be President upon starting their first term, simply because there isn't any other job in the United States remotely like it. So you can't say that Obama was any worse off at Inauguration Day than anyone else. And that goes for your recently deposed hero, as well.
Well, he was hardly my hero. And he was hardly "deposed".
But I do think one can make the case that other presidents have began their first terms with considerably higher qualifications than a senator who only finished 1/3 of his first term...and spent most of that actively campaigning.
He had campaign managers to actually run the thing. And raising something like half a billion dollars will do wonders for any campaign. Hell, you could take Corkey from Life Goes On, give him $500,000,000 and he could probably put up a respectable showing in a national election.
Regardless, that is what you're basing your high expectations on? Instead of doing his job as a Senator, he spent the last 2 years running for president?
Yes Obama sat on the sidelines and the DNC machine ran everything even though he wasn't the establishment candidate. That makes sense. You also seem to act like he magically got loads of money, the fundraising is part of the campaign as well. Why did small donors throw money his way and not Hillary Clintons?
And I guess I'll bite. What is the approrpriate amount of experience to run for POTUS, in your mind, and how does that experience apply to the position?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
