Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sean Payton's Vicodin

GM heading for bankruptcy... again.

65 posts in this topic

For all of you that worship Ronald Reagan he also thought it was worth while to bail out an automotive company. So President Bush and President Obama are in good company.

Ever hear of CONRAIL? You can thank Presidents Nixon and Ford for that government intervention in our failing railroads. Why that is four Republican Presidents and President Obama doing government bailouts in the last 40 years.

Don't get me started on all the Taxpayer assisted buyouts of failed financial institutions, over the last several decades, that allowed NCNB/Nationsbank to become TBTF.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I'm not a republican. Because I say something that counters some libs doesn't mean I'm that. Gm got taxpayer money and then went into bankruptcy. That's not a wise move. It also can't be compred to tarp because one was localized while the other was global and commerce directed. While we are here can some of you genius libs tell me why freddie mac and fannie mae have yet to pay ANY tarp money back?

Sorry, but if you disagree with them, you are republican and evil, thats all there is to it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but if you disagree with them, you are republican and evil, thats all there is to it. :)

If you are Democratic President and embrace conservative Republican policies as your own, the GOP will abandon those positions just so they can call you a European Socialist that doesn't understand America. :rolleyes:

Mitch McConnell, on the day of your inauguration, declares his number one objective is to see you fail as President and refuses to negotiate in good faith despite your best efforts and the critical need for bipartisanship to solve the worst economic crisis in 70 years. :(

I'll return to the GOP fold when they actually try and balance our Federal budget (to include our grossly bloated Defense Dept) and stop trying to legislate what is morally acceptable for Americans do in the privacy of their own homes (how can you claim to want smaller government and do this?). :blink:

Until then they are little more than lap dogs of the powerful few, winning elections by feeding on the worst fears and biases of WASPs and demonstrating their hate of the democratic process by limiting the voting rights of minorities in every conceivable way :angry: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just ask if you guys were going to continue to be obsessed with Bush jr. You are the only one who said anything about whose fault the recession was. But since you brought it up.

Recessions generally aren't the "fault" of any specific president. In fact, given the size of the US and World economy, in most cases blaming the president is simplistic and mostly a result of bombastic partisan politics. There are a few cases in which specific policy decisions by a president or the government led to a recession (for example the recession of 1937) but for the most part, they happen for a number of reasons, most of which have very little to do with government policy. George W Bush didn't cause the recession of 2008. He played a role, just as many others (republican, democrat, or none of the above) did, but it was a relatively small one. The forces that caused the 2008 recession had been building longer than many of the posters on this board have been alive.

People like to say that the crisis was caused by shortsightedness, stupidity, and greed. They may be partially right, but those conditions are always with us, and its highly unlikely that they were any worse from 1990-2007 than during previous times in our history.

IMO, it was just part of the economic cycles that have been occurring since our country got started. Worst than many, but certainly not the worst. And while many want the government to try to legislate recessions into history (and Obama is certainly trying), IMO thats impossible and we are always going to have them. They come, we rebound eventually and do well for a while, only to see it all happen again.

You should read a book called This Time its Different.

Pretty good points, but I'm gonna disagree with you on a couple. Yes, the economy is cyclical, and the POTUS gets WAY too much blame/ credit for economic conditions.

But while our economy (and in particular the housing market) may have always been headed for a downturn, the financial crisis was hardly due to a cyclical economy. For gods sake, there were major US banks with trillions of dollars tied up in completely unregulated subprime mortgage derivatives.

Oh but I forgot, those derivatives were given AAA ratings by the credit agencies, so those were completely safe investments, even though anyone with rational thinking capabilities could tell you that if the housing market drops or even stays flat those are very risky investments.

Just because the economy has its ups and downs doesnt mean we cant improve it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty good points, but I'm gonna disagree with you on a couple. Yes, the economy is cyclical, and the POTUS gets WAY too much blame/ credit for economic conditions.

But while our economy (and in particular the housing market) may have always been headed for a downturn, the financial crisis was hardly due to a cyclical economy. For gods sake, there were major US banks with trillions of dollars tied up in completely unregulated subprime mortgage derivatives.

Oh but I forgot, those derivatives were given AAA ratings by the credit agencies, so those were completely safe investments, even though anyone with rational thinking capabilities could tell you that if the housing market drops or even stays flat those are very risky investments.

Just because the economy has its ups and downs doesnt mean we cant improve it

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said. The point I was making to James was that blaming any specific president or admin policies for a recession is usually wrong. You seem to back that up.

Regarding what you said about the banks, I agree, and they were stupid. But its a stupidity that has been repeated time and time again, albeit under different circumstances. We may be able to improve it to an extent, but I don't think we will ever be able to prevent things like 2008, because all the legislation in the world can't overcome stupidity and complacency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally the President does not have a lot of control over the economy.

However, Bush took the unprecedented steps of taking a surplus and instead of saving it, decided to just cut taxes instead. He then started 2 very large wars without funding them, as well as a pretty giant Medicare project. This is more of a deficit spending issue than an "total economy" one but to conservatives, they are somehow one in the same. I think it can be easily argued that Bushes deficits were ones of choice, while Obamas were mostly ones of necessity. Cue Keynesian doubters -

When the housing crash happened and all the banking tricks were exposed, we had nothing in reserve so it was deficit spending to save the economy or let it crash. Bush and Obama saved it, but for some reason Obama is the one getting hit as some kind of big spender.

But hey we can't blame anyone now, its all water under the bridge, unless you are a Muslim Socialist who engineered all this to allow Islamic Fundamentalists to take over the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My post:

Obsessed? So the recession that happened under bush isn't partially his fault?

Riveting tale, chap.

Where Davidson Deac runs with it:

I just ask if you guys were going to continue to be obsessed with Bush jr. You are the only one who said anything about whose fault the recession was. But since you brought it up.

Recessions generally aren't the "fault" of any specific president. In fact, given the size of the US and World economy, in most cases blaming the president is simplistic and mostly a result of bombastic partisan politics. There are a few cases in which specific policy decisions by a president or the government led to a recession (for example the recession of 1937) but for the most part, they happen for a number of reasons, most of which have very little to do with government policy. George W Bush didn't cause the recession of 2008. He played a role, just as many others (republican, democrat, or none of the above) did, but it was a relatively small one. The forces that caused the 2008 recession had been building longer than many of the posters on this board have been alive.

People like to say that the crisis was caused by shortsightedness, stupidity, and greed. They may be partially right, but those conditions are always with us, and its highly unlikely that they were any worse from 1990-2007 than during previous times in our history.

IMO, it was just part of the economic cycles that have been occurring since our country got started. Worst than many, but certainly not the worst. And while many want the government to try to legislate recessions into history (and Obama is certainly trying), IMO thats impossible and we are always going to have them. They come, we rebound eventually and do well for a while, only to see it all happen again.

You should read a book called This Time its Different.

With most of the fluff removed:

Recessions generally aren't the "fault" of any specific president. George W Bush didn't cause the recession of 2008. He played a role, just as many others (republican, democrat, or none of the above) did, but it was a relatively small one.

You saw the word fault in the same sentence as bush and assumed I blamed him for the whole thing, just so you could go on your little rant :lol:

Ah well it was still a cool story bro even if it had nothing to do with me or what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My post:

Where Davidson Deac runs with it:

With most of the fluff removed:

You saw the word fault in the same sentence as bush and assumed I blamed him for the whole thing, just so you could go on your little rant :lol:

Ah well it was still a cool story bro even if it had nothing to do with me or what I said.

My original comment wasn't even directed at you specifically, not sure why you seem to assume it was. But the board left wing is definitely obsessed with Bush, just as the right was with Clinton during the bush. Only the election of Obama seems to have cured it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally the President does not have a lot of control over the economy.

However, Bush took the unprecedented steps of taking a surplus and instead of saving it, decided to just cut taxes instead. He then started 2 very large wars without funding them, as well as a pretty giant Medicare project. This is more of a deficit spending issue than an "total economy" one but to conservatives, they are somehow one in the same. I think it can be easily argued that Bushes deficits were ones of choice, while Obamas were mostly ones of necessity. Cue Keynesian doubters -

When the housing crash happened and all the banking tricks were exposed, we had nothing in reserve so it was deficit spending to save the economy or let it crash. Bush and Obama saved it, but for some reason Obama is the one getting hit as some kind of big spender.

But hey we can't blame anyone now, its all water under the bridge, unless you are a Muslim Socialist who engineered all this to allow Islamic Fundamentalists to take over the country.

Lots of conservatives do fault Bush for much of the fiscal problems. I think its part of the reason for the rising (relatively) popularity of the libertarian side of the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My original comment wasn't even directed at you specifically, not sure why you seem to assume it was. But the board left wing is definitely obsessed with Bush, just as the right was with Clinton during the bush. Only the election of Obama seems to have cured it.

What the hell? All I did was reply.

Am I not allowed to respond unless I'm specifically singled out? Wow that's good to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are of course free to respond, but you should probably try to stick to the topic at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic we were discussing, the GM bailout will be mostly Obama's. It won't effect the election, but it will impact his legacy. If GM survives and gets stronger, Obama will be remembered as the guy who saved GM. If they collapse or end up costing the government a lot of money, he will be remembered for costing the taxpayers a fortune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites