history tells me it will work just as it worked in the past . On Jan 14, 3:01 pm, frankg <fran...@gmail.com> wrote: > Again with the blind faith. > > Roosevelt's New Deal and what Obama is proposing are very different. > The US and the World in the early 30's was very different from the US > and the World today. The global economy, which influences every > country, including the US, is very different from the one that existed > back in the early 30's. > > You seem to argue every point the same way.. you repeat your belief or > some uselessly high level concept as evidence of your point, never > taking the time to drill down or defend it. If you believe it will > work, you must have some concept on exactly how that will be achieved. > > On Jan 14, 2:51 pm, "florida mike !" <littlemike...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > it worked very well when Roosevelt did it and it will work very well > > again . > > > On Jan 14, 11:02 am, frankg <fran...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Mike, > > > > You are, of course, free to think and do whatever you please but I do > > > suggest that a little more than blind faith be applied. Just because > > > you have this hate/love relationship with Bush/Obama, respectively, > > > doesn't mean that doing the same thing will result in vastly different > > > outcomes just because it's Obama's administration. I've questioned > > > twice now how government funded jobs will be sustained and all you've > > > been able to do is say you believe it will work. That and a $1.50 at a > > > Starbucks might get you a small, regular coffee, but not much else. In > > > the short term, if it puts people to work, that is great. But from my > > > untrained perspective it has the very real chance of simply making > > > things worse, not better. I keep hearing catch phrases such as "kick > > > start the economy" but the economy is not a motorcycle. I wish someone > > > could put into layman's terms exactly how spending hundreds of > > > billions of dollars on unsustainable government jobs will help the > > > situation we are in. > > > > On Jan 14, 3:35 am, "florida mike !" <littlemike...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > from what i understand the money isn't going to be used the way bush > > > > used the first half . > > > > > On Jan 14, 1:43 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <phoeni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Obama, Bush team up behind another $350 billion for the banks > > > > > 14 January 2009 > > > > > > First things first. Even before President Bush makes his farewell > > > > > address on Thursday and Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th president > > > > > next Tuesday, the outgoing and incoming administrations are engaged in > > > > > a concerted drive to release the second $350 billion installment of > > > > > taxpayer funds to bail out the banks. > > > > > > Obama telephoned Bush Monday morning and asked that he formally > > > > > request the second half of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief > > > > > Program (TARP) windfall for Wall Street approved by Congress on > > > > > October 3. Bush complied almost immediately, starting the clock on a > > > > > 15-day period during which Congress can block the Treasury Department > > > > > from transferring additional billions to financial institutions only > > > > > if both houses reject the president's request. Even in that highly > > > > > unlikely event, the president can vacate the congressional action by > > > > > issuing a veto, which would require a two-thirds majority in both the > > > > > House of Representatives and the Senate to override—virtually a > > > > > political impossibility given overwhelming Democratic support for the > > > > > bailout and Democratic control of both congressional chambers. > > > > > > Such is the priority given to the bailout money for the banks that > > > > > Obama and his top economic aides are devoting themselves nearly full- > > > > > time to meeting with leading Democrats and Republicans and lobbying > > > > > Congress for support. Obama's $800 billion economic stimulus package, > > > > > itself tailored to the demands of big business, can wait until mid- > > > > > February, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pledged to hold a > > > > > vote on the TARP money by this Friday at the latest. > > > > > > The joint Bush-Obama push for the second half of the TARP money has > > > > > occasioned a flurry of complaints from both sides of the congressional > > > > > aisle over the refusal of the banks to use the billions they received > > > > > in the first installment to increase their lending and protests from > > > > > Democrats over the failure to provide relief for homeowners facing > > > > > foreclosure—the ostensible purposes of the program. There is also much > > > > > bluster over the lack of any restrictions on how the banks used the > > > > > money, the absence of serious limits on executive pay and the fact > > > > > that the banks were not even required to inform Congress or the public > > > > > what they did with the government funds they received. > > > > > > Of the $350 billion already distributed, $250 billion went to banks > > > > > and financial institutions, including $125 billion to the nine biggest > > > > > banks. Another $40 billion was added to the $100 billion previously > > > > > paid out to rescue the insurance giant American International Group, > > > > > $19 billion went for emergency loans to General Motors and Chrysler, > > > > > $20 billion went to other firms, and $25 billion was injected into > > > > > Citigroup as part of a bailout involving over $300 billion in > > > > > government loans and guarantees. > > > > > > It is well established that the banks used the money to shore up their > > > > > reserves and, in the case of some of the biggest firms, to buy up > > > > > smaller institutions with the aid of a tax break unilaterally enacted > > > > > by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, formerly the CEO of Goldman > > > > > Sachs, to facilitate a further concentration of financial power on > > > > > Wall Street. > > > > > > Obama himself on Monday noted "the absence of clarity, the lack of > > > > > transparency, the failure to track how the money's been spent and the > > > > > failure to take bold action with respect to areas like housing," > > > > > saying he was "disappointed." He promised to "fundamentally change > > > > > some of the practices in using this next phase of the program." > > > > > > This, and similar statements from leading Democrats in Congress, are > > > > > little more than window dressing designed to placate public anger over > > > > > the handover of federal funds to shore up the balance sheets of the > > > > > very institutions whose pursuit of super-profits and financial Ponzi > > > > > schemes precipitated the deepest economic crisis since the Great > > > > > Depression. Some political cover is needed to continue placing the > > > > > assets of the American people at the disposal of this discredited > > > > > financial elite. > > > > > > But such demagogy and associated political maneuvering cannot disguise > > > > > the total subordination of the government and both parties to the most > > > > > powerful sections of the ruling class. The indecent haste with which > > > > > both the outgoing and incoming administrations are rushing to satisfy > > > > > the demands of Wall Street for a new infusion of cash provides an > > > > > object lesson on the class relations that underlie American > > > > > "democracy." > > > > > > One day before Obama requested $350 billion more for the banks, he > > > > > explicitly affirmed that his administration would seek to impose major > > > > > funding cuts and structural "reforms" on the bedrock social programs— > > > > > Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—upon which tens of millions of > > > > > workers and retirees depend. In an interview on the ABC News "This > > > > > Week" program, Obama was asked whether he would carry out "entitlement > > > > > reform, including Social Security and Medicare, where everybody in the > > > > > country is going to have to sacrifice." > > > > > > "Yes," Obama replied, adding that "what you describe is exactly what > > > > > we're going to have to do... Everybody is going to have to give." > > > > > > Everybody, that is, except for the multi-millionaires and billionaires > > > > > who comprise the financial aristocracy. > > > > > > There is not even an attempt to explain why it is the critical social > > > > > programs on which the working class relies that must be cut to offset > > > > > the explosive growth of budget deficits resulting from cash infusions > > > > > to the banks and corporations. Indeed, as with the initial passage of > > > > > the TARP program, there is to be no public discussion or serious > > > > > congressional debate—no assessment of the failure of the first > > > > > installment to prevent the economic catastrophe it was supposedly > > > > > implemented to avert, or explanation of how the second installment > > > > > will work, whom it will benefit and how it will address the economic > > > > > crisis any better than the first half of the Wall Street slush fund. > > > > > > Once again, a proverbial gun is being held to the head of the American > > > > > people. In a letter to congressional leaders, Obama's top economic > > > > > adviser, Lawrence Summers, wrote that "President-elect Obama believes > > > > > the need is imminent and urgent. We cannot afford to wait." > > > > > > In his letter to Congress, Summers wrote that companies receiving > > > > > "exceptional assistance" would be subject to "tough but sensible" > > > > > limits on executive pay and other restrictions. One can judge how much > > > > > such assurances are worth from the resumés of Summers and Obama's > > > > > designee as treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who will head up the > > > > > TARP program. > > > > > > As treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, Summers promoted > > > > > the dismantling of bank regulations and the cheap credit policies that > > > > > fueled the housing and credit bubbles which imploded 18 months ago. > > > > > Geithner, as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, played > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
