In case anyone still doubts that Bush was incompetent...

[Doc]

Spock wrote:
[quote=Doc]

Far fewer banks. Big ones got cash and bought other big banks. Little ones went out of business. Farmers still can't get loans to plant crops because their local banks went under. Small businesses still can't get rolling loans for payroll. New and usurious credit cards terms are ruining people's lives.

I can't think of any bank that has shut its doors and left depositors empty handed.
WTF are you talking about? Your comment is completely out of left field.

Why quote me if you're going to completely ignore the issues that I raised?

[mattkime]

>>Far fewer banks. Big ones got cash and bought other big banks. Little ones went out of business.

Except for the government shoring up banks, thats all normal business.

A lot of small banks have continued to do quite well because they didn't dabble in the sub prime mortgage fiasco.

>>Farmers still can't get loans to plant crops because their local banks went under. Small businesses still can't get rolling loans for payroll. New and usurious credit cards terms are ruining people's lives.

Those are certainly bad things but we're still much much better off than we were a year ago.

>>Say again how much that bailout helped.
>>Maybe if you repeat it enough, someone will believe you.

If you expected the bailout to return us back to pre crash economic levels in a matter of months, you set yourself up for disappointment.

[Ted King]

You know, I had a feeling I should have added a comment to the OP. The issue I was raising was not whether or not the bailout was a good idea (I think it was necessary to bail them out to avoid a severe world wide economic depression - but the way it was done let the bad actors off without meaningful consequences); the issue I meant to raise was that Bush evidently didn't have a clue what he was agreeing to when he signed off on the program. I mean, the guy had been president for almost 8 years and approved a program for $700 billion and didn't know what he was approving. That inept thinking showed itself over and over again - Iraq, Katrina, Justice Department scandal, etc. etc. This forum is pretty much a free-for-all so if you all want to use this thread to hash over the merits of the bailout, that is, of course, fine, but I just want to clarify that that wasn't the issue I intended to raise.

[DharmaDog]

Doc wrote:
[quote=mattkime]
the confounded bailout is why the economy is doing as well as it is.

Other stuff like extending unemployment benefits, Cash for Clunkers and Making Home Affordable have been more helpful and are likely to produce greater public benefits throughout the recession and recovery.
I agree with you, but take exception with the Making Home Affordable plan. I am for that program, but it has not been executed well. It has helped less than 10% of the people it was supposed to.

The government gave the banks almost $80 billion for this program, but as far as I know there were no requirements that the banks use all of this money to modify loans or refinance for responsible homeowners, nor were there any penalties if they effectively did nothing as they appear to be doing.

There is no incentive for these banks to refinance the loans of people that have not been late with payments. They won't do it. They are dragging their feet until rates rise to the point that no one will want to refinance anymore. Then they'll have their excuse for why they managed to help only 400,000 homes instead of the 5 million intended.

[OWC Jamie]

He should have hired a dozen or so emperors that don't have to answer to congress to do his thinking for him.

[$tevie]

Dakota wrote:
If the criterion is that it could be worse then you can't lose. No unemployment figure is too high because it could be higher. Obama can always claim he has saved a million jobs. without adding a single job.

Funny how you didn't complain when Bush took credit for there being no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11.

[$tevie]

People can't seem to figure out how serious the situation was. Or they have forgotten. Good post, thank you.

mattkime wrote:
>>So far as I can tell, the bank bailout accomplished nothing for the general public

except that we still have banks.

did you know that banks nearly stopped lending money to each other? that creates HUGE problems and essentially signals the shut down of the modern financial system. businesses were getting cut off from lines of credit that they depended on to continue daily operations, forcing them to fire people, etc.

>>A bailout 10-times smaller would probably have done the same job.

I dont think any economists agree with that.\

>>Other stuff like extending unemployment benefits, Cash for Clunkers and Making Home Affordable have been more helpful and are likely to produce greater public benefits throughout the recession and recovery.

We need a banking system and we nearly lost it. Putting money into the hands of individuals would seem small if the financial system no longer existed.

[OWC Jamie]

$tevie wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
If the criterion is that it could be worse then you can't lose. No unemployment figure is too high because it could be higher. Obama can always claim he has saved a million jobs. without adding a single job.

Funny how you didn't complain when Bush took credit for there being no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11.

Let's hope the current president can make the same claim.
We wouldn't want a president to fail.

[$tevie]

Doc wrote:
[quote=mattkime]
the confounded bailout is why the economy is doing as well as it is.

So far as I can tell, the bank bailout accomplished nothing for the general public except grant a week or two where people were confused enough to think that it was supposed to help them and didn't riot in the streets. A bailout 10-times smaller would probably have done the same job.

Other stuff like extending unemployment benefits, Cash for Clunkers and Making Home Affordable have been more helpful and are likely to produce greater public benefits throughout the recession and recovery.
You can't keep the banking system from collapsing by giving someone $4500 for their old car. You are touting putting a couple of fingers in the dyke even as it is being washed away.

[$tevie]

billb wrote:
[quote=$tevie]
[quote=Dakota]
If the criterion is that it could be worse then you can't lose. No unemployment figure is too high because it could be higher. Obama can always claim he has saved a million jobs. without adding a single job.

Funny how you didn't complain when Bush took credit for there being no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11.

Let's hope the current president can make the same claim.
We wouldn't want a president to fail.
I don't subscribe to the theory that the president is going to single handedly have any effect one way or the other. It's got a lot more to do with the caliber of the various govt agencies and I happen to think they've simply been lucky so far. I would love to be Queen of the World and get down there and kick some butt.