reply to post by jibeho
1) The auto bailouts actually worked!
2) Without bailouts we would be worse off, and more people would now be unemployed. Why is that? Because even though banks aren't lending easily now,
without the bailouts those banks would be no more...which would harm economic growth even more than it already does. You're also ignoring the FACT
that large parts of those bailouts have been paid back.
3) You want to attribute Obamacare that doesn't even kick in until 2014 in 2009?
4) A large part of the spending...WAY more than the bailouts was the result of DEFENSE SPENDING. Defence spending due to wars BUSH got us into.
5) The GOP didin't agree with $150b of Democrat spending? ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Compared to the total budget that's a TINY fraction
6) Companies paid RECORD LOW taxes ever since Bush (and even less under Obama) took office. Of course that harms the budget ledger because income (aka
taxes) gets wiped out. So of course the deficit will increase.
Just so you know, the largest single-policy contributor to the deficit are the Bush tax cuts. Which is incredibly ironic given that trickle down
economics CLEARLY don't work
In short, as much as disagree with a lot of Obama's policies (indefinite detentions, not closing Gitmo, etc.), claiming he is mostly responsible for
the budget deficit is ridiculous...especially given that we're in an economic crisis. Check out what happens to the deficit every time we enter a
crisis, it's always the same
By the way, not sure why they always mention Dodd-Frank. If anything, D-F didn't go far enough!! Financial deregulation is what got us into this mess
in the first place...so if you want to criticise D-F, you should criticise that it doesn't go far enough.
The reason the recovery is so slow is because the banks aren't lending...which harms investments, which in turns harms growth. Banks aren't lending
because of capital requirements that are really needed given how much they messed up in the past. Low capital requirements is what got us into this
mess, it's the reason those banks needed bailouts in the first place. After all this mess you can't seriously suggest to tell the banks "continue as
before, don't have sufficient levels of security so you don't need bailouts" just to stimulate the economy...that would just lead to another crash in
edit on 31-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)