Dems cast Rush as spokesman for GOP

[Lurker]

Also, your statement in a previous post about how this would be a whole lot worse without the intervention... that's just pure speculation. I could say that we'd be a whole lot better off without the TARP, and it would be just as reliable as your statement.

Read your statement and my response again. I was responding to your speculation.

If you remember, all the hype around this was that the infusions would loosen credit. That comes from the policy makers, and it has yet to happen.

I agree that the first round of TARP hasn't worked.

Why are you so afraid to let the bigger banks fail?

You can't be against nationalizing the banks and for letting the bigger banks fail. They result in the same thing. If we let BofA or Citi "fail", the Feds will come in and take over the management and assets and then sell them off. I'm not necessarily against that but it will take years and lots of taxpayer money.

===

Adding this. The Government already underwrites some loans. I know for certain they underwrite student loans. I'm for continuing that practice and cutting out the middle man, resulting in a savings for students and taxpayers.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Why are you so afraid to let the bigger banks fail?

You can't be against nationalizing the banks and for letting the bigger banks fail. They result in the same thing. If we let BofA or Citi "fail", the Feds will come in and take over the management and assets and then sell them off. I'm not necessarily against that but it will take years and lots of taxpayer money.

That's not nationalization, that's the gov't stepping in then selling it off to another private entity.

[Lurker]

Well, sort of. My point was that the Government has to temporarily nationalize the bank, sometimes for years, when a bank "fails".

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Lets use WaMu as a reference point:

Fed stepped in Sept. 25th and sold it to JPMorgan Chase before Nov? Hardly anything like nationalization.

Edit: also I neglected to take into account that a different administration was in charge then. The current one is definitely for nationalization.

[Lurker]

Not sure it matters, but JP Morgan used TARP money to buy WaMu. If BofA or Citi "fails" the Feds would have to control their management and assets for a much longer period. I don't see anyone in a strong enough position to purchase either banks assets quickly.

As for the Obama administration being pro-nationalization... what are you basing that on? Through words and actions they have been pretty clear they do not want to nationalize the banks.

I think we are all in agreement that the Government should step in, take over the failed banks, and then sell the assets. In other words, they should temporarily nationalize the banks and then sell them to private parties even if it took years. I can only imagine the howling from the right if Obama actually did that though. The screeching cries of "Socialism!" would be deafening.

[Ddrak]

The real problem is going to start when you get through this whole thing and realize that you only have BoA and Citi as the pillars of the banking sector. That's not enough for a free market to operate.

btw - the Daily Show segment and the following one about the "Dow Knows All" were awesome.

Dd

[Partha]

The real problem came when people stopped treating the banks as boring institutions that made a little bit of money off interest and loan payments and became privatized vehicles for ever-increasing speculation on bubble factories.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The real problem came when people stopped treating the banks as boring institutions that made a little bit of money off interest and loan payments and became privatized vehicles for ever-increasing speculation on bubble factories.

Lets be a bit more speciifc other than "people", shall we? Bank management made those decisions, decisions suported by boards of directors, who in turn were supported by stockholders. Also, not all banks engaged in that activity (look at most regional and business banks, for example). The management, boards and shareholders should therefore bear the brunt of the consequences of those decisions.

[Klast Brell]

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/03 ... ort_of.php
Hughley challenged the RNC chairman, asserting that Limbaugh is the GOP's de facto leader. "No he's not," Steele responded. "I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party."
...
"Let's put it in the context here," Steele said. "Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. His whole thing is entertainment...yes, it's incendiary, yes, it's ugly."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19498.html
"You know who needs a little leadership? Michael Steele and those at the RNC,” Limbaugh said, part of an unusual counter-attack against the elected head of the GOP.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/02/ ... index.html
"There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership," Steele said.

[Partha]

Lets be a bit more speciifc other than "people", shall we? Bank management made those decisions, decisions suported by boards of directors, who in turn were supported by stockholders.

And you're one of the people who insists that they do a better job of managing the economy than the Obama administration will.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Lets be a bit more speciifc other than "people", shall we? Bank management made those decisions, decisions suported by boards of directors, who in turn were supported by stockholders.

And you're one of the people who insists that they do a better job of managing the economy than the Obama administration will.

Say what?

You've never been strong on economics, and reading comprehension seems to be lacking with you as well. I'm all for letting the insolvent banks fail. You, however, seem to think its ok for the Obama administration to pump billions of dollars into those ailing banks, and then those banks will continue to make bad decisions.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Lets be a bit more speciifc other than "people", shall we? Bank management made those decisions, decisions suported by boards of directors, who in turn were supported by stockholders.

And you're one of the people who insists that they do a better job of managing the economy than the Obama administration will.

Well they've certainly done a lot for futures so far.

[Ddrak]

Well they've certainly done a lot for futures so far.

Yeah, the Dow knows best!

Seriously, how can you judge Obama's performance based on futures when the extent of the collapse is still unfolding? Futures are going to respond much more to AIG's latest dramas than anything the government is going to do.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Well they've certainly done a lot for futures so far.

Yeah, the Dow knows best!

Seriously, how can you judge Obama's performance based on futures when the extent of the collapse is still unfolding? Futures are going to respond much more to AIG's latest dramas than anything the government is going to do.

Dd

Or the fact that it tanked as soon as the stimulus was passed...

[Lurker]

You're trolling, right? Even you aren't that stupid.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Let's look at the facts for a minute, and use them to form an opinion about the success of Obama's economic policy.

During the campaign, he pledged to limit earmarks to pre-1994 levels, yet he signed the omnibus spending bill with pork well in excess of that.

He promised to put a bill online for 5 days before signing it, but we barely got 15 hours for the stimulus bill.

He promised transparency in TARP fund allocations.. we still don't know what bank got what, and what strings were attached.

The Dow is working its way to 5000.

One in five mortgages are "underwater".

No headway has been made in removing toxic assets from balance sheets... hell, they can't even value them yet.

Credit is still largely frozen, pumping a trillion dollars into banks/insurance companies has done nothing, yet he wants to keep doing the same thing and hope for a different result (hello Einstein and the definition of insanity).

Unemployment at 10%

700 applications for a janitor's job at a school.

GM about to go belly up, despite the cash infusion they received.

Citigroup trading for less than a dollar (the same Citigroup Obama wants to give billions to)

This is Lurker's definition of success.

[Lurker]

Ha!

You tried to blow smoke up everyone's ass for four years while Iraq slid into chaos and you come up with that list of tripe 50 days into Obama's Administration?

Too funny.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ha!

You tried to blow smoke up everyone's ass for four years while Iraq slid into chaos and you come up with that list of tripe 50 days into Obama's Administration?

Too funny.

Nice deflection. Want to stay on topic or retreat into Bush-hating rhetoric?

[Lurker]

That was neither a deflection nor an anti-Bush comment. I'm merely bringing some perspective to your obvious troll attempt.

Obama hasn't solved the worst recession in generations yet and he hasn't instituted every campaign promise in his first 50 days! OMG what a failure and liar he is.

[Embar Angylwrath]

That was neither a deflection nor an anti-Bush comment. I'm merely bringing some perspective to your obvious troll attempt.

Obama hasn't solved the worst recession in generations yet and he hasn't instituted every campaign promise in his first 50 days! OMG what a failure and liar he is.

Not yet fulfilling promises is different than outright breaking them. Do you deny he hasn't broken any campaign promises? What about the promise to post bills online for review and comment 5 days before signing them? What about opening up the transparency behind the TARP allocations? Those are pretty easy to do, why hasn't he kept the easy promises? If he's so willing to break the easy promises, what makes you think he'll keep the harder ones?