Are Obama and his Team Repeating Mistakes of the 1930s?

Great Bush Recession.

 

For the record (and I hate to disagree with you, buddy) but oil is somewhat cheaper this year (so far) then last year.

http://www.nyse.tv/crude-oil-price-history.htm

Though that trend may reverse if a recession hits and/or the dollar keeps climbing.

 

Being that liberals spend more time revising history than they do actually studying, I wouldn't doubt it. They're not too big on learning from past mistakes. They have a bull-headedness about them that always believes that "this time it will be different."

 

I have spent plenty of time studying history. As a liberal, we must learn from the long term complications of the New Deal, such as Securitization. However, we must also learn from the successes of the New Deal, such as the Glass-Steagall Act. Although I don't remember Bill Clinton passing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, I regret the decision.

Both extremes of the political spectrum try to revise history for their political gain. The Tea Party has a lobsided viewpoint towards the Constitution, and many Liberals have a lobsided viewpoint towards the New Deal. Theories are evident throughout the study of history, but if they are not backed by historical accounts or evidence, it is pure revisionism.

 

I must respectfully disagree, Diplomat.



"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787

 

followed by the great Obama disaster LOL

 

What disaster was that? LOL

 

where do I start?

1.4 trillion deficit yearly

9% unemployment

a drop in the american credit rating

a debt to GDP that has reached 100%


need I go on?

 

Feel free, and why you are at it, you can explain the basis for your position that it's Obama's fault we are dealing with these things.

 

Obama needed to let the system purge and let both GM and Citibank along with freddie and fannie fail.......what would of happened? A deep recession yes....but only for about 18 months...house prices would of been much lower now and I am confident new home buyers would of been in there with both feet by now!

 

I see. He should have let the banking system collapse.

Bright plan. Worked great in the GD.

 

banks fail globally all the time...the sky doesn't fall ya know!

 

That is true, but 50-75% of them don't.

 

I doubt 75% of the banks would of failed...many mid-western banks didn't even want the tarp money as they were sound but were forced to. My point is there are many solvent banks that would of filled the void!

 

I think if you added up the assets of the top 10 banks you'd get over 50%. BoA alone is 25%.

 

You are correct, Dispondent.

 

you are talking market share per bank....like the fact citibank and B of A lone have something like one third I think.....still...there are dozens of mid western banks....each taking a small chunk would of filled the void!

 

you are correct, bacardi.

Almost all of the TARP money went exclusively to the big banks.

 

I agree......and its extremely unfair that the taxpayers have to pay up because the big boys made a bad bet!

 

Too big to fail is a myth!

 

Imo, TARP had virtually nothing to do with saving almost ANY banks.

1) Documents Reveal How Paulson Forced Banks To Take TARP Cash

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com...9994241_1_scribd-bank-documents#ixzz1ZaqWpdtc

Why one Earth would a bank that is going to go under without TARP money, have to be threatened to take it?


2) 'QE1' and Mark-to-Market rule changes helped the banks with FAR, FAR more money then TARP ever did.

TARP loaned the banks at most about $250 billion?

QE1 (the Fed's toxic asset buy ups) ALONE accounted for about $1.25 trillion dollars to help out the banks.

And - to my knowledge - there is no telling how many hundreds of billions the Mark-to-Market rule changes saved the banks.


All TARP was for most of the banks was some money for them to gamble on the stock market.
Many of them took much of the cash, bet it on the market (knowing with all the trillions of government stimulation/bailouts/buy-ups that the markets would at least be temporarily pumped up), made a bundle when the markets rebounded, gave back the TARP money, pocketed the profits and then gave themselves gigantic bonuses (all thanks to the taxpayers).
TARP was like someone lending a gambler the money to go to the race track (interest free) and then giving him inside information on which horse was going to win.


Funny enough, the big winners in the TARP sweepstakes were probably AIG, GM and Chrysler.
The money to save their hides came mostly (entirely?) from TARP.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/200904_CREDITCRISIS/recipients.html

 

How much lost output are you prepared to accept? Ten trillion? Twenty trillion?

 

Infinity. The economy does what it does...it's none of the government's business (outside of fraud/economic illegalities and health/safety).

Outside of a major declared war, the federal budget should never be in deficit and the government should NEVER interfere in the economy.


Now answer my question.

 

you make it sound as though markets collapse indefinately...they don't, at some point a bottom is reached and a base is established and eventually a new bull market is born!

 

what these keynessians dont comprehend is that the market needs to be cleaned of all bad investments made during the boom before a new bull market can begin.....when the government interferes with this process then the bear market just drags on and on!