5 years into Obama's "economic recovery"

[icanthearyou 4,468]

And ICHY is right. Capitalists have pretty much recovered.

LOL convenient argument for someone unwilling to admit this administration HAS FAILED the American people in an almost unprecedented fashion. Its awesome though that those who support Obama are trying to spin this like his policies have created an economic recovery. The average rate of growth in every economic recovery in history is 4% and Obama's "recover" is averaging 2% and has earned the dubious distinction of having THE lowest labor force participation rate in American history. There are currently more Americans out of work than are working in the entire private sector and we have libtards in here telling us Obama's recovery is working..Good Lord!

The problem here is Obama sees the business community as the enemy. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world and every time Obama expresses concerns over middle class America he turns around and pursues a policy that hurts the middle class. Keystone Pipeline says hello. Its clear this president doesn't understand that it is impossible to spend our way out of a recession with borrowed money, though God knows, he has tried and has spent more money than ALL Presidents before him combined. Helluva a recovery Barry..Thanks! Put it in the backs of corporate America by pushing raising the minimum wage when it has already been saddled with THE most intrusive regulatory policies in history currently costing over $1.86 trillion dollars a year.

Bottom line its much easier to demagogue the issue than to actually provide leadership in solving the economic shortfalls that continue to plague the country.

Blah, blah, blah-- you are an utterly predictable and unusually angry partisan.

The bottom fell out of the economy under Bush-- not all his fault by a long shot. The recession was far worse than usual. The recovery has been slower than usual. Obama's fault? Republican House's fault? Certainly brinkmanship politics with defaulting didn't help. The same folks that thought defaulting was a good idea cry about the slow growing economy. Insanity.

LOL...Oh, I know its Bush's fault even FIVE and a half years later. Brinkmanship politics were played by the democrats brah, but NOBODY defaulted. Let me ask..what color is the sky in your world? There us utterly no connection between Congress making every effort to reign in this administrations out of control spending and the worst economic recovery in history.

Only blind partisans continue to support the failed policies of the Obama crowd. Anger has not zilch to do with my posts. I cant control any of it so i don't waste my time being angry over it. At the same time, it is what it is and your continued effort to paint me as angry only further solidifies the obvious that you're going to make every effort to minimize the colossal failure this president has become by trying to compare it to situations 30 years removed or by placing all the blame on Bush 5 and half years later when it is NOW that America is saddled with THE LOWEST labor force participation rate in its history due to this president's failed economic policies.

You can't read either.

^THIS^ is the truth. However, in fairness to Blue, he doesn't need to read anything because he already knows everything.

Speaking of this robust Obama recovery, I know this; ObamaCare will hurt small business owners bad. Yaboy Harry Reid is gonna be very popular when possibly as many as 90,000 people in Nevada lose their heath insurance when the business mandate kicks in. The beat goes on, the economy continues to tank, and the liberal progressives keep telling themselves its all Geo Bush's fault.

http://www.reviewjou...-obamacare-pain

Yes they do. It is a foolish notion. As foolish as believing that it is all Obama's fault.

[AUisAll 2]

And ICHY is right. Capitalists have pretty much recovered.

LOL convenient argument for someone unwilling to admit this administration HAS FAILED the American people in an almost unprecedented fashion. Its awesome though that those who support Obama are trying to spin this like his policies have created an economic recovery. The average rate of growth in every economic recovery in history is 4% and Obama's "recover" is averaging 2% and has earned the dubious distinction of having THE lowest labor force participation rate in American history. There are currently more Americans out of work than are working in the entire private sector and we have libtards in here telling us Obama's recovery is working..Good Lord!

The problem here is Obama sees the business community as the enemy. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world and every time Obama expresses concerns over middle class America he turns around and pursues a policy that hurts the middle class. Keystone Pipeline says hello. Its clear this president doesn't understand that it is impossible to spend our way out of a recession with borrowed money, though God knows, he has tried and has spent more money than ALL Presidents before him combined. Helluva a recovery Barry..Thanks! Put it in the backs of corporate America by pushing raising the minimum wage when it has already been saddled with THE most intrusive regulatory policies in history currently costing over $1.86 trillion dollars a year.

Bottom line its much easier to demagogue the issue than to actually provide leadership in solving the economic shortfalls that continue to plague the country.

Blah, blah, blah-- you are an utterly predictable and unusually angry partisan.

The bottom fell out of the economy under Bush-- not all his fault by a long shot. The recession was far worse than usual. The recovery has been slower than usual. Obama's fault? Republican House's fault? Certainly brinkmanship politics with defaulting didn't help. The same folks that thought defaulting was a good idea cry about the slow growing economy. Insanity.

LOL...Oh, I know its Bush's fault even FIVE and a half years later. Brinkmanship politics were played by the democrats brah, but NOBODY defaulted. Let me ask..what color is the sky in your world? There us utterly no connection between Congress making every effort to reign in this administrations out of control spending and the worst economic recovery in history.

Only blind partisans continue to support the failed policies of the Obama crowd. Anger has not zilch to do with my posts. I cant control any of it so i don't waste my time being angry over it. At the same time, it is what it is and your continued effort to paint me as angry only further solidifies the obvious that you're going to make every effort to minimize the colossal failure this president has become by trying to compare it to situations 30 years removed or by placing all the blame on Bush 5 and half years later when it is NOW that America is saddled with THE LOWEST labor force participation rate in its history due to this president's failed economic policies.

You can't read either.

^THIS^ is the truth. However, in fairness to Blue, he doesn't need to read anything because he already knows everything.

Speaking of this robust Obama recovery, I know this; ObamaCare will hurt small business owners bad. Yaboy Harry Reid is gonna be very popular when possibly as many as 90,000 people in Nevada lose their heath insurance when the business mandate kicks in. The beat goes on, the economy continues to tank, and the liberal progressives keep telling themselves its all Geo Bush's fault.

http://www.reviewjou...-obamacare-pain

Yes they do. It is a foolish notion. As foolish as believing that it is all Obama's fault.

It's not all Obama's fault but the vast majority of it falls directly at his feet. He was the Chief Liar to get Obamacare passed and his policies and rhetoric are killing jobs-PERIOD.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"As foolish as believing that it is all Obama's fault."

Who has ever stated or even obliquely implied it was all Barry's fault? I never have even though i do think his environmental, economic and tax policies have been major players in holding the recovery down.

[homersapien 12,172]

Right Obama has failed the country. I guess the recovery would have been faster had the Republicans forced GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy.

Well that is the precedent whereby companies can gain protection from their creditors. As it turned out Ford refused govt bailout money did just that and they're healthier financially than either GM or Chrysler. The GM bailout cost taxpayers $billions when the feds sold their stock at a lower price than what they paid for it.....damned good policy, LOL. It seems ot be a pattern here. Throw as much tax payer money at every untenable situation like it is the govts job to fix it. Typical progressive policy making

Ford didn't need it DA. If they did, believe me, they would have asked for it.

So are you really arguing the austerity is the way to address a recession teetering on the brink of depression?

Would the recovery been faster had GM and Chrysler been allowed to declare bankruptcy?

Actually Ford took out a $23.5 billion dollar loan to avoid bankruptcy while GM and Chrysler leaned on the govt for federal guarantees. When the federal govt starts routinely embracing policies that promote the idea that some companies are too big to fail the tax payer loses EVERYTIME

And just why did GM and Chrysler "lean" on the gov't for federal guarantees?

And there's not much one can do about companies that are too big too fail after the fact other than save them. I would welcome legislation that limited the size of any company to be "too big too fail", but it's logically obvious that if such a company already exists and is about to fail, then it benefits the taxpayer, by definition.

And I don't see how plunging the economy into depression could be a benefit to anyone.

So if you want to criticize Obama, then criticize him for not proposing legislation to limit the size of companies for the sake of the economy, starting with the banks.

[homersapien 12,172]

And ICHY is right. Capitalists have pretty much recovered.

LOL convenient argument for someone unwilling to admit this administration HAS FAILED the American people in an almost unprecedented fashion. Its awesome though that those who support Obama are trying to spin this like his policies have created an economic recovery. The average rate of growth in every economic recovery in history is 4% and Obama's "recover" is averaging 2% and has earned the dubious distinction of having THE lowest labor force participation rate in American history. There are currently more Americans out of work than are working in the entire private sector and we have libtards in here telling us Obama's recovery is working..Good Lord!

The problem here is Obama sees the business community as the enemy. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world and every time Obama expresses concerns over middle class America he turns around and pursues a policy that hurts the middle class. Keystone Pipeline says hello. Its clear this president doesn't understand that it is impossible to spend our way out of a recession with borrowed money, though God knows, he has tried and has spent more money than ALL Presidents before him combined. Helluva a recovery Barry..Thanks! Put it in the backs of corporate America by pushing raising the minimum wage when it has already been saddled with THE most intrusive regulatory policies in history currently costing over $1.86 trillion dollars a year.

Bottom line its much easier to demagogue the issue than to actually provide leadership in solving the economic shortfalls that continue to plague the country.

Blah, blah, blah-- you are an utterly predictable and unusually angry partisan.

The bottom fell out of the economy under Bush-- not all his fault by a long shot. The recession was far worse than usual. The recovery has been slower than usual. Obama's fault? Republican House's fault? Certainly brinkmanship politics with defaulting didn't help. The same folks that thought defaulting was a good idea cry about the slow growing economy. Insanity.

Blah, blah, blah, you are utterly predictable still blaming Bush. No one blames O for the recession; hell, he got elected for 2 reasons; one being the recession. O's presidency is all about "what did you do with the hand you were dealt". By historical standards, he's crashed and burned. And, historically, when you have a deep recession; the curve coming out is equally steep. When you have policies that by any objective measure could not possibly result in economic growth; no one should be surprised when we have lackluster growth. Frankly, we should be shocked that we have any growth at all. That is not a testement to O; it's a testament that American ingenuity survives even when we have policies hostile to it. We spent $1T on supposed shovel ready jobs projects and stimulus; that turned into nothing but welfare; no infrastructure, no industrial policy, no energy policy, nothing but $1T in additional debt around our necks. That's $3030 per citizen of the country of additional national debt...

You still lack basic reading comprehension.

OK, let's see...this thread is about Obama's economic leadership 5.5 years into his admin; right? Your answer to that is "the bottom fell out of the economy under Bush".... and you say I have reading comprehension issues?

The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the Global Financial Crisis and2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.^[1] It resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. The crisis played a significant role in the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of U.S. dollars, and a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global recession and contributing to the European sovereign-debt crisis.^[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia...._of_2007â€"2010

[homersapien 12,172]

And ICHY is right. Capitalists have pretty much recovered.

LOL convenient argument for someone unwilling to admit this administration HAS FAILED the American people in an almost unprecedented fashion. Its awesome though that those who support Obama are trying to spin this like his policies have created an economic recovery. The average rate of growth in every economic recovery in history is 4% and Obama's "recover" is averaging 2% and has earned the dubious distinction of having THE lowest labor force participation rate in American history. There are currently more Americans out of work than are working in the entire private sector and we have libtards in here telling us Obama's recovery is working..Good Lord!

The problem here is Obama sees the business community as the enemy. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world and every time Obama expresses concerns over middle class America he turns around and pursues a policy that hurts the middle class. Keystone Pipeline says hello. Its clear this president doesn't understand that it is impossible to spend our way out of a recession with borrowed money, though God knows, he has tried and has spent more money than ALL Presidents before him combined. Helluva a recovery Barry..Thanks! Put it in the backs of corporate America by pushing raising the minimum wage when it has already been saddled with THE most intrusive regulatory policies in history currently costing over $1.86 trillion dollars a year.

Bottom line its much easier to demagogue the issue than to actually provide leadership in solving the economic shortfalls that continue to plague the country.

Blah, blah, blah-- you are an utterly predictable and unusually angry partisan.

The bottom fell out of the economy under Bush-- not all his fault by a long shot. The recession was far worse than usual. The recovery has been slower than usual. Obama's fault? Republican House's fault? Certainly brinkmanship politics with defaulting didn't help. The same folks that thought defaulting was a good idea cry about the slow growing economy. Insanity.

Blah, blah, blah, you are utterly predictable still blaming Bush. No one blames O for the recession; hell, he got elected for 2 reasons; one being the recession. O's presidency is all about "what did you do with the hand you were dealt". By historical standards, he's crashed and burned. And, historically, when you have a deep recession; the curve coming out is equally steep. When you have policies that by any objective measure could not possibly result in economic growth; no one should be surprised when we have lackluster growth. Frankly, we should be shocked that we have any growth at all. That is not a testement to O; it's a testament that American ingenuity survives even when we have policies hostile to it. We spent $1T on supposed shovel ready jobs projects and stimulus; that turned into nothing but welfare; no infrastructure, no industrial policy, no energy policy, nothing but $1T in additional debt around our necks. That's $3030 per citizen of the country of additional national debt...

You still lack basic reading comprehension.

The second point you made was "the recession was far worse than usual" apparently used as justification for the recovery pattern we are seeing...However, global and US economic history says severe recessions are followed by faster and steeper rebounds....so you basically got that one about as wrong as you could get it.

I like to see some sources for this.

And how long did it take us to recover from the Great Depression? By your logic, that recovery should have been even quicker.

http://www.theguardi...s-myths-sustain

There is no real comparison between the past five years and the half-decade after the Wall Street Crash in October 1929. In the 1930s, a quarter of the American workforce was out of work and industrial production fell by 50%. A better historical parallel may be the Great Depression of the 19th century, a slowdown in growth and deflationary pressure that lasted from 1873 to 1896.

The reason the crisis has been so long comes down to three myths. The Anglo-Saxon myth is that big finance is a force for good, rather than rent-seeking and corrupt. The German myth is you can solve a problem of demand deficiency with belt tightening and export growth. The right policy involves tough curbs on the banks, international co-operation so creditor countries increase domestic demand to help debtor countries, and a measured pace of deficit reduction governed by the pace of growth rather than arbitrary targets.

The chances of this happening are slim. Because there is a third myth – that there was not much wrong with the global economy in 2007. But the old model was financially flawed as it operated with high levels of debt, socially flawed in that the spoils of growth were captured by a small elite, and environmentally flawed in that all that mattered was ever-higher levels of growth. It is possible to move on, but only when it is recognised that the genie will not go back into the bottle.

[Tigermike 3,657]

And ICHY is right. Capitalists have pretty much recovered.

LOL convenient argument for someone unwilling to admit this administration HAS FAILED the American people in an almost unprecedented fashion. Its awesome though that those who support Obama are trying to spin this like his policies have created an economic recovery. The average rate of growth in every economic recovery in history is 4% and Obama's "recover" is averaging 2% and has earned the dubious distinction of having THE lowest labor force participation rate in American history. There are currently more Americans out of work than are working in the entire private sector and we have libtards in here telling us Obama's recovery is working..Good Lord!

The problem here is Obama sees the business community as the enemy. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world and every time Obama expresses concerns over middle class America he turns around and pursues a policy that hurts the middle class. Keystone Pipeline says hello. Its clear this president doesn't understand that it is impossible to spend our way out of a recession with borrowed money, though God knows, he has tried and has spent more money than ALL Presidents before him combined. Helluva a recovery Barry..Thanks! Put it in the backs of corporate America by pushing raising the minimum wage when it has already been saddled with THE most intrusive regulatory policies in history currently costing over $1.86 trillion dollars a year.

Bottom line its much easier to demagogue the issue than to actually provide leadership in solving the economic shortfalls that continue to plague the country.

Blah, blah, blah-- you are an utterly predictable and unusually angry partisan.

The bottom fell out of the economy under Bush-- not all his fault by a long shot. The recession was far worse than usual. The recovery has been slower than usual. Obama's fault? Republican House's fault? Certainly brinkmanship politics with defaulting didn't help. The same folks that thought defaulting was a good idea cry about the slow growing economy. Insanity.

LOL...Oh, I know its Bush's fault even FIVE and a half years later. Brinkmanship politics were played by the democrats brah, but NOBODY defaulted. Let me ask..what color is the sky in your world? There us utterly no connection between Congress making every effort to reign in this administrations out of control spending and the worst economic recovery in history.

Only blind partisans continue to support the failed policies of the Obama crowd. Anger has not zilch to do with my posts. I cant control any of it so i don't waste my time being angry over it. At the same time, it is what it is and your continued effort to paint me as angry only further solidifies the obvious that you're going to make every effort to minimize the colossal failure this president has become by trying to compare it to situations 30 years removed or by placing all the blame on Bush 5 and half years later when it is NOW that America is saddled with THE LOWEST labor force participation rate in its history due to this president's failed economic policies.

You can't read either.

^THIS^ is the truth. However, in fairness to Blue, he doesn't need to read anything because he already knows everything.

Speaking of this robust Obama recovery, I know this; ObamaCare will hurt small business owners bad. Yaboy Harry Reid is gonna be very popular when possibly as many as 90,000 people in Nevada lose their heath insurance when the business mandate kicks in. The beat goes on, the economy continues to tank, and the liberal progressives keep telling themselves its all Geo Bush's fault.

http://www.reviewjou...-obamacare-pain

Yes they do. It is a foolish notion. As foolish as believing that it is all Obama's fault.

He's in his second term as president and the loons defending him still blame Bush. Truly pathetic.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

And ICHY is right. Capitalists have pretty much recovered.

LOL convenient argument for someone unwilling to admit this administration HAS FAILED the American people in an almost unprecedented fashion. Its awesome though that those who support Obama are trying to spin this like his policies have created an economic recovery. The average rate of growth in every economic recovery in history is 4% and Obama's "recover" is averaging 2% and has earned the dubious distinction of having THE lowest labor force participation rate in American history. There are currently more Americans out of work than are working in the entire private sector and we have libtards in here telling us Obama's recovery is working..Good Lord!

The problem here is Obama sees the business community as the enemy. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world and every time Obama expresses concerns over middle class America he turns around and pursues a policy that hurts the middle class. Keystone Pipeline says hello. Its clear this president doesn't understand that it is impossible to spend our way out of a recession with borrowed money, though God knows, he has tried and has spent more money than ALL Presidents before him combined. Helluva a recovery Barry..Thanks! Put it in the backs of corporate America by pushing raising the minimum wage when it has already been saddled with THE most intrusive regulatory policies in history currently costing over $1.86 trillion dollars a year.

Bottom line its much easier to demagogue the issue than to actually provide leadership in solving the economic shortfalls that continue to plague the country.

Blah, blah, blah-- you are an utterly predictable and unusually angry partisan.

The bottom fell out of the economy under Bush-- not all his fault by a long shot. The recession was far worse than usual. The recovery has been slower than usual. Obama's fault? Republican House's fault? Certainly brinkmanship politics with defaulting didn't help. The same folks that thought defaulting was a good idea cry about the slow growing economy. Insanity.

Blah, blah, blah, you are utterly predictable still blaming Bush. No one blames O for the recession; hell, he got elected for 2 reasons; one being the recession. O's presidency is all about "what did you do with the hand you were dealt". By historical standards, he's crashed and burned. And, historically, when you have a deep recession; the curve coming out is equally steep. When you have policies that by any objective measure could not possibly result in economic growth; no one should be surprised when we have lackluster growth. Frankly, we should be shocked that we have any growth at all. That is not a testement to O; it's a testament that American ingenuity survives even when we have policies hostile to it. We spent $1T on supposed shovel ready jobs projects and stimulus; that turned into nothing but welfare; no infrastructure, no industrial policy, no energy policy, nothing but $1T in additional debt around our necks. That's $3030 per citizen of the country of additional national debt...

You still lack basic reading comprehension.

OK, let's see...this thread is about Obama's economic leadership 5.5 years into his admin; right? Your answer to that is "the bottom fell out of the economy under Bush".... and you say I have reading comprehension issues? Once elected and in office, what difference does it make who created the situation?... O is the president now, congratulations; he got what you asked for...now, where's his hope and change?

The second point you made was "the recession was far worse than usual" apparently used as justification for the recovery pattern we are seeing...However, global and US economic history says severe recessions are followed by faster and steeper rebounds....so you basically got that one about as wrong as you could get it.

Your last point was gridlock somehow created a slower economic climate. I'll set aside for a moment who caused/causes gridlock; the reality is that the gridlock prevented spending additional deficit $$. Throwing more $$ into unproductive efforts, unemployment, etc., only gets you more of the thing you subsidize. So, it would seem that the gridlock actually helped growth; not the other way around as you infer...

I think my reading comprehension was pretty good....I would recommend reading Adam Smith or the more recent Porter.

No, this wasn't the run of the mill, or even a "severe" recession, not by a long shot. This was unprecedented by anything other than possibly the Great Depression. When Bernanke and Paulson called the leaders of Congress in, they weren't worried about a mild or even severe recession. They were fearing a world wide collapse of the financial markets.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"And there's not much one can do about companies that are too big too fail after the fact other than save them

AuContraire my ultra liberal apologist. Let them fail. Let them file for bankruptcy which provides protection from their creditors under the law to restructure their operation. This was written into law for this precise reason. The govt needs to stay out of big business...the tax payers LOSE everytime they step in with federal protection and guarantees. In GMs case, the govt lost $billions on their stock purchase. Tell me again how that benefited tax payers.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"And there's not much one can do about companies that are too big too fail after the fact other than save them

AuContraire my ultra liberal apologist. Let them fail. Let them file for bankruptcy which provides protection from their creditors under the law to restructure their operation. This was written into law for this precise reason. The govt needs to stay out of big business...the tax payers LOSE everytime they step in with federal protection and guarantees. In GMs case, the govt lost $billions on their stock purchase. Tell me again how that benefited tax payers.

Not trying to argue with you Blue so, don't go all nuts. It is interesting that Paulson, and I assume Bush had this same philosophy when it came to Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch. And suddenly, when the economies of the entire world began to collapse (at least that is how Paulson and Bernanke painted it) they changed their minds.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"And there's not much one can do about companies that are too big too fail after the fact other than save them

AuContraire my ultra liberal apologist. Let them fail. Let them file for bankruptcy which provides protection from their creditors under the law to restructure their operation. This was written into law for this precise reason. The govt needs to stay out of big business...the tax payers LOSE everytime they step in with federal protection and guarantees. In GMs case, the govt lost $billions on their stock purchase. Tell me again how that benefited tax payers.

Not trying to argue with you Blue so, don't go all nuts. It is interesting that Paulson, and I assume Bush had this same philosophy when it came to Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch. And suddenly, when the economies of the entire world began to collapse (at least that is how Paulson and Bernanke painted it) they changed their minds.

GM hardly represents the entire world wouldn't you at least agree to that?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"And there's not much one can do about companies that are too big too fail after the fact other than save them

AuContraire my ultra liberal apologist. Let them fail. Let them file for bankruptcy which provides protection from their creditors under the law to restructure their operation. This was written into law for this precise reason. The govt needs to stay out of big business...the tax payers LOSE everytime they step in with federal protection and guarantees. In GMs case, the govt lost $billions on their stock purchase. Tell me again how that benefited tax payers.

Not trying to argue with you Blue so, don't go all nuts. It is interesting that Paulson, and I assume Bush had this same philosophy when it came to Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch. And suddenly, when the economies of the entire world began to collapse (at least that is how Paulson and Bernanke painted it) they changed their minds.

GM hardly represents the entire world wouldn't you at least agree to that?

I don't really think GM or GE or Chrysler are the big issue. I am talking about the Wall St. banks and AIG. This is where the systemic nature of the crisis began. The others, are like many companies that got caught borrowing long term in order to lend short term.

[homersapien 12,172]

"And there's not much one can do about companies that are too big too fail after the fact other than save them

AuContraire my ultra liberal apologist. Let them fail. Let them file for bankruptcy which provides protection from their creditors under the law to restructure their operation. This was written into law for this precise reason. The govt needs to stay out of big business...the tax payers LOSE everytime they step in with federal protection and guarantees. In GMs case, the govt lost $billions on their stock purchase. Tell me again how that benefited tax payers.

see "World Financial Collapse" aka "Great Depression".

I'll bet you think letting a house burn to the ground is a good way to address faulty wiring.

But you completely miss my point. I don't think "too big to fail" companies should be allowed to become that big. If they are too big to fail, they are too big to exist. But that was hardly on the option list for Obama or Bush at the time.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"And there's not much one can do about companies that are too big too fail after the fact other than save them

AuContraire my ultra liberal apologist. Let them fail. Let them file for bankruptcy which provides protection from their creditors under the law to restructure their operation. This was written into law for this precise reason. The govt needs to stay out of big business...the tax payers LOSE everytime they step in with federal protection and guarantees. In GMs case, the govt lost $billions on their stock purchase. Tell me again how that benefited tax payers.

Not trying to argue with you Blue so, don't go all nuts. It is interesting that Paulson, and I assume Bush had this same philosophy when it came to Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch. And suddenly, when the economies of the entire world began to collapse (at least that is how Paulson and Bernanke painted it) they changed their minds.

GM hardly represents the entire world wouldn't you at least agree to that?

I don't really think GM or GE or Chrysler are the big issue. I am talking about the Wall St. banks and AIG. This is where the systemic nature of the crisis began. The others, are like many companies that got caught borrowing long term in order to lend short term.

OK but the back and forth in this thread was about the big 3 car companies. Expanding the parameters of the issue casts a very different light on the depth and breath of the crisis.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"And there's not much one can do about companies that are too big too fail after the fact other than save them

AuContraire my ultra liberal apologist. Let them fail. Let them file for bankruptcy which provides protection from their creditors under the law to restructure their operation. This was written into law for this precise reason. The govt needs to stay out of big business...the tax payers LOSE everytime they step in with federal protection and guarantees. In GMs case, the govt lost $billions on their stock purchase. Tell me again how that benefited tax payers.

see "World Financial Collapse" aka "Great Depression".

I'll bet you think letting a house burn to the ground is a good way to address faulty wiring.

Please help me understand the convoluted logic that connects these vastly different cases. Honestly, you can produce some rather strange analogies to try to win a losing point. My house and Big 3 car makers are the same?

[homersapien 12,172]

"And there's not much one can do about companies that are too big too fail after the fact other than save them

AuContraire my ultra liberal apologist. Let them fail. Let them file for bankruptcy which provides protection from their creditors under the law to restructure their operation. This was written into law for this precise reason. The govt needs to stay out of big business...the tax payers LOSE everytime they step in with federal protection and guarantees. In GMs case, the govt lost $billions on their stock purchase. Tell me again how that benefited tax payers.

Not trying to argue with you Blue so, don't go all nuts. It is interesting that Paulson, and I assume Bush had this same philosophy when it came to Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch. And suddenly, when the economies of the entire world began to collapse (at least that is how Paulson and Bernanke painted it) they changed their minds.

GM hardly represents the entire world wouldn't you at least agree to that?

You obviously have never played one of those games where you remove a single part of a tower structure until the whole thing crashes down.

It's no wonder you aren't worried about the degradation of our environment.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"And there's not much one can do about companies that are too big too fail after the fact other than save them

AuContraire my ultra liberal apologist. Let them fail. Let them file for bankruptcy which provides protection from their creditors under the law to restructure their operation. This was written into law for this precise reason. The govt needs to stay out of big business...the tax payers LOSE everytime they step in with federal protection and guarantees. In GMs case, the govt lost $billions on their stock purchase. Tell me again how that benefited tax payers.

Not trying to argue with you Blue so, don't go all nuts. It is interesting that Paulson, and I assume Bush had this same philosophy when it came to Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch. And suddenly, when the economies of the entire world began to collapse (at least that is how Paulson and Bernanke painted it) they changed their minds.

GM hardly represents the entire world wouldn't you at least agree to that?

I don't really think GM or GE or Chrysler are the big issue. I am talking about the Wall St. banks and AIG. This is where the systemic nature of the crisis began. The others, are like many companies that got caught borrowing long term in order to lend short term.

OK but the back and forth in this thread was about the big 3 car companies. Expanding the parameters of the issue casts a very different light on the depth and breath of the crisis.

I understand and in this case, I probably lean towards your side. I do think there were alternatives but, I don't know how time constraints may have factored into the decisions made. Regardless, I am not a fan of the way winners and losers were picked by the government.

[homersapien 12,172]

"And there's not much one can do about companies that are too big too fail after the fact other than save them

AuContraire my ultra liberal apologist. Let them fail. Let them file for bankruptcy which provides protection from their creditors under the law to restructure their operation. This was written into law for this precise reason. The govt needs to stay out of big business...the tax payers LOSE everytime they step in with federal protection and guarantees. In GMs case, the govt lost $billions on their stock purchase. Tell me again how that benefited tax payers.

see "World Financial Collapse" aka "Great Depression".

I'll bet you think letting a house burn to the ground is a good way to address faulty wiring.

Please help me understand the convoluted logic that connects these vastly different cases. Honestly, you can produce some rather strange analogies to try to win a losing point. My house and Big 3 car makers are the same?

Think about it a while. I bet everyone else understood my point.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"And there's not much one can do about companies that are too big too fail after the fact other than save them

AuContraire my ultra liberal apologist. Let them fail. Let them file for bankruptcy which provides protection from their creditors under the law to restructure their operation. This was written into law for this precise reason. The govt needs to stay out of big business...the tax payers LOSE everytime they step in with federal protection and guarantees. In GMs case, the govt lost $billions on their stock purchase. Tell me again how that benefited tax payers.

Not trying to argue with you Blue so, don't go all nuts. It is interesting that Paulson, and I assume Bush had this same philosophy when it came to Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch. And suddenly, when the economies of the entire world began to collapse (at least that is how Paulson and Bernanke painted it) they changed their minds.

GM hardly represents the entire world wouldn't you at least agree to that?

You obviously have never played one of those games where you remove a single part of a tower structure until the whole thing crashes down.

It's no wonder you aren't worried about the degradation of our environment.

Yet another witless analogy that is strictly irrelevant to the thread...carry on homie. Post another long copy and paste, you're better at that! lol

[homersapien 12,172]

"And there's not much one can do about companies that are too big too fail after the fact other than save them

AuContraire my ultra liberal apologist. Let them fail. Let them file for bankruptcy which provides protection from their creditors under the law to restructure their operation. This was written into law for this precise reason. The govt needs to stay out of big business...the tax payers LOSE everytime they step in with federal protection and guarantees. In GMs case, the govt lost $billions on their stock purchase. Tell me again how that benefited tax payers.

Not trying to argue with you Blue so, don't go all nuts. It is interesting that Paulson, and I assume Bush had this same philosophy when it came to Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch. And suddenly, when the economies of the entire world began to collapse (at least that is how Paulson and Bernanke painted it) they changed their minds.

GM hardly represents the entire world wouldn't you at least agree to that?

You obviously have never played one of those games where you remove a single part of a tower structure until the whole thing crashes down.

It's no wonder you aren't worried about the degradation of our environment.

Yet another witless analogy that is strictly irrelevant to the thread...carry on homie. Post another long copy and paste, you're better at that! lol

Like I said. I bet everyone else understood it.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"It's no wonder you aren't worried about th degradation of our environment."

You're damned right Im not. At least not until there is a global solution. Punishing American businesses who are barely surviving now with additional environmental regulations while all the other big economies of the world continue to pollute with reckless abandon which BTW, has not had ONE negative impact on the climate in over 20 years, is mindless IMO>

[TheBlueVue 177]

"And there's not much one can do about companies that are too big too fail after the fact other than save them

AuContraire my ultra liberal apologist. Let them fail. Let them file for bankruptcy which provides protection from their creditors under the law to restructure their operation. This was written into law for this precise reason. The govt needs to stay out of big business...the tax payers LOSE everytime they step in with federal protection and guarantees. In GMs case, the govt lost $billions on their stock purchase. Tell me again how that benefited tax payers.

Not trying to argue with you Blue so, don't go all nuts. It is interesting that Paulson, and I assume Bush had this same philosophy when it came to Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch. And suddenly, when the economies of the entire world began to collapse (at least that is how Paulson and Bernanke painted it) they changed their minds.

GM hardly represents the entire world wouldn't you at least agree to that?

You obviously have never played one of those games where you remove a single part of a tower structure until the whole thing crashes down.

It's no wonder you aren't worried about the degradation of our environment.

Yet another witless analogy that is strictly irrelevant to the thread...carry on homie. Post another long copy and paste, you're better at that! lol

Like I said. I bet everyone else understood it.

If your gambling is much like your politics you'd lose that bet.

[homersapien 12,172]

"And there's not much one can do about companies that are too big too fail after the fact other than save them

AuContraire my ultra liberal apologist. Let them fail. Let them file for bankruptcy which provides protection from their creditors under the law to restructure their operation. This was written into law for this precise reason. The govt needs to stay out of big business...the tax payers LOSE everytime they step in with federal protection and guarantees. In GMs case, the govt lost $billions on their stock purchase. Tell me again how that benefited tax payers.

Not trying to argue with you Blue so, don't go all nuts. It is interesting that Paulson, and I assume Bush had this same philosophy when it came to Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch. And suddenly, when the economies of the entire world began to collapse (at least that is how Paulson and Bernanke painted it) they changed their minds.

GM hardly represents the entire world wouldn't you at least agree to that?

You obviously have never played one of those games where you remove a single part of a tower structure until the whole thing crashes down.

It's no wonder you aren't worried about the degradation of our environment.

Yet another witless analogy that is strictly irrelevant to the thread...carry on homie. Post another long copy and paste, you're better at that! lol

Like I said. I bet everyone else understood it.

If your gambling is much like your politics you'd lose that bet.

Do you really need me to explain? I will gladly do so if necessary.

[homersapien 12,172]

"And there's not much one can do about companies that are too big too fail after the fact other than save them

AuContraire my ultra liberal apologist. Let them fail. Let them file for bankruptcy which provides protection from their creditors under the law to restructure their operation. This was written into law for this precise reason. The govt needs to stay out of big business...the tax payers LOSE everytime they step in with federal protection and guarantees. In GMs case, the govt lost $billions on their stock purchase. Tell me again how that benefited tax payers.

see "World Financial Collapse" aka "Great Depression".

I'll bet you think letting a house burn to the ground is a good way to address faulty wiring.

Please help me understand the convoluted logic that connects these vastly different cases. Honestly, you can produce some rather strange analogies to try to win a losing point. My house and Big 3 car makers are the same?

You need me to explain this one also? I'll do it it shorthand. (Presumably you have experience with the format in some long-forgotten exam.):

Company too-big-to-fail : Economy = Faulty wiring : House

Get it now?

[autigeremt 7,133]

This economy is the bestest in the world! Everything Obama predicted in 2008 has come true. Stop fussing! IF you are lucky you will get on government assistance too! And pay tolls on the interstates while you are at it.