""I readily concede I chucked aside my free-market principles when I was told ... the situation we were facing could be worse than the Great Depression," Bush said." Obama asks Bush to seek $350B rescue funds - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/01/12/Bush_will_seek_350B_bailout_if_Obama_asks/UPI-83061231774105/)

Another nut that didn't fall far from the tree.

What do you believe about President Bush's statement?Hello George:

I believe it proves that he was NEVER in charge. Vice and Rummy were running the show from the get go.

Now, he gave the reins over to Paulson while he visits school children. Pathetic!

excon

This recession may be one of the biggest downturns since WWII . But those who claimed they were facing a crisis worse than the Great Depression were blowing smoke and clucking like Chicken-little . Unfortunately Bush's advisers were the ones clucking loudest. The remaining TARP II money should not be released until there is adequate acccounting of where the 1st $350 billion went. and if it indeed sufficiently loosen the "credit crisis" .

I hear the porn industry is looking for a handout.
Porn industry seeks $5 billion federal bailout | ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2009/01/08/flynt_porn_bailout.html)

Bush did a great job in the first recession he faced. He cut taxes. This time he is blowing it badly. He is playing the part of Hoover well (except for the lack of protectionist tariffs... Congress will add that coup de gras this term) .

He is playing the part of Hoover well (except for the lack of protectionist tariffs ....Hello tom:

Glad to see you're off your Truman comparison... ;)

excon

Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman; makes little difference. Truman Nationalizing Steel Industry http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1394

Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman; makes little difference. Hello again, George:

Are you putting the dufus in THAT camp? You should!

The ACTUAL amount that the dufus is letting Paulson fritter away is a LOT, LOOOOOOOOOT bigger than anything the three of those lefty's did - even if you TOTALED UP Everything they did.

I'd be ashamed to claim him.

excon

I'd be ashamed to claim him.That's kind of what going on:
The American Debate: He damaged party in two fundamental ways | Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/11/2009 (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20090111_The_American_Debate__He_damaged_party_in_ two_fundamental_ways.html?referrer=digg)

My Truman comparison always applied only to his Cold war Doctrine compared to the Bush Doctrine post 9-11... and the fact that Truman left even less popular than Bush will .

But speaking of the Truman economy... this GDP output is the lowest right now since... TRUMAN. Truman also had an economic slowdown in 1949 . Both unemployment and inflation rose during the first six months of that year ;the 1st downturn since the post WWII boom.

[QUOTE=excon;1480534

The ACTUAL amount that the dufus is letting Paulson fritter away is a LOT, LOOOOOOOOOT bigger than anything the three of those lefty's did - even if you TOTALED UP EVERTHING they did.

excon[/QUOTE]

"The nearest precedent for the Treasury plan, finance experts say, are the investments made by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in the 1930s. The agency, established in 1932, not only made loans to distressed banks, but also bought stock in 6,000 banks, at a cost of $1.3 billion, said Mr. Sylla, the N.Y.U. economist. A similar effort these days, in proportion to today’s economy, would be about $200 billion." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/business/economy/14nationalize.html?_r=1

I guess that the great bank robbery of only HALF of the hand out money was not enough for them, now they want the REST of the dough. The best part of all this is the fact that it is none of our business (the American people that is) just who got how much of the original money in the first place. What makes anyone think we'll ever know who got the rest of the money and what happened to it. Politics and Washington DC are enough to turn my stomach. Apparently Shrub wants to make sure "his" pals get the rest of the dough so he "politely asked" Barky to give it to them.

The best part of all this is the fact that it is none of our business (the American people that is) just who got how much of the original money in the first place. What makes anyone think we'll ever know who got the rest of the money and what happened to it.

We should know who gets the money; we may not know what was done with it. http://www.time.com/time/includes/charts/tarp_chart_1112.html

Free market insanity got us into this mess. When you have a banking system that is allowed to lend 30 to 40 times the amount they have on deposit you are asking for a catastrophy. Canadian banks on the other hand used to have much tighter regulations about the amount the amount of cash they had to have on hand. While living in Canada we would regularly over the years hear about a bank failing in the US and thank our lucky stars that our banking system was much more secure due to tighter regulations.

So I now hear that the banks are hoarding the TARP I money and not lending it because they are now actually trying to lower their cash to loan ratio. Does it mean they finally woke up, no. It means they are trying to live long enough for the economy to turn around, but they are making the problem worse by not loosening credit to even those who are credit worthy.

You'll see, without new banking regulations to control these idiots; the same idiots in an unfettered free market will do the same thing over again, they can't help it. In order to beat the competition and to satisfy shareholders they have to take more and more risk; if they play safe while the other guy is taking all their business then they lose too. Hence, they all trip over each other to lend more and more of the money they don't have.

Unless Government sets ground rules to level the playing field, since they can't be trusted to govern themselves in pursuit of profit.

This is an important role for Government when the entire nation depends on the private banking system to make sure there is a free flow of capital. When private enterprise fails to deliver a service so vital to American's; it's equally vital that laws are enacted to make sure the service survives and works for American's.

Free market yes, but with tweeking when it doesn't work for the greater good of the American people.

----------------

As for Bush chucking aside his free market prinicples, if he had of stuck to them he would have let Wall Street and the banking system collapse and the trillions of dollars of paper would have vanished and he couldn't do that to the rich and powerful which had been in his corner for so long. So again, more corporate welfare; because the free market wasn't going to save his buddies this time, nor would it have saved the economy. Free market competition without self governing and/or lax government regulation screwed us and both parties are responsible, but it was on Bush's watch; he's ultimately responsible.

It looks like Sen Minority leader Mitch McConnell will lead a bipartisan opposition with fellow Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to the release of the bal. of TARP II .



Some Senate Democrats remain skeptical, as well. "I voted against the bailout because I thought it lacked accountability and transparency. Unfortunately, that turned out to be the case," said Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat. "Before I approve use of the rest of the money, I'm going to need to see a detailed plan for how it would be spent."
Senate Democrats are trying to find 50 votes to thwart any resolution disapproving the funds.

U.S. Seeks Rest of Bailout Cash - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123177778175873781.html)

"The financial crisis that has plunged the United States into recession is different in its complexity and scope than previous bouts of turmoil, key presidential economic adviser Paul Volcker said on Monday.

"Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, said he did not know how long the economic malaise would last but policy makers should use this opportunity to rebuild the financial system on a more stable foundation.

"Crises are old but this crisis is different," said Volcker, whom President-elect Barack Obama has appointed to chair the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

"It's different in its enormous complexity; it's certainly different in the massive intervention of government. It's more global in scope than any previous crises."

Moneynews - Volcker: This Crisis is Different (http://money.newsmax.com/streettalk/volcker/2009/01/13/170767.html?s=al&promo_code=7786-1)

The home financing fiasco seems to be the culprit; Fannie and Freddie are not examples of "free market insanity" or free market "tweeking".

I heard Bernanke on C-SPAN this morning: "The Federal Reserve will do its part to promote economic recovery, but other policy measures will be needed as well," Mr. Bernanke said in a speech at the London School of Economics. "The incoming administration and the Congress are currently discussing a substantial fiscal package that, if enacted, could provide a significant boost to economic activity.

"In my view, however, fiscal actions are unlikely to promote a lasting recovery unless they are accompanied by strong measures to further stabilize and strengthen the financial system," he added. Bernanke Says Stimulus Should Be Paired With Other Measures - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123185225001377063.html)

It sounds to me as though he is building a financial Frankenstein.

The home financing fiasco seems to be the culprit; Fannie and Freddie are not examples of "free market insanity" or free market "tweeking".


Of course not ! It was gvt intervention creating an artificial bubble that eventually burst.

of course not ! it was gvt intervention creating an artificial bubble that eventually burst.

Bernanke confirmed this in his speech, saying that Fannie and Freddie's activities had foreseeable results, at least to the Federal Reserve, several years ago.

Anyone aware whether Bernanke has offered this as testimony to the Congress?

From a speech, March 6, 2007: "" Although they retain their government charters, Fannie and Freddie were converted (in 1968 and 1989, respectively) to private, publicly traded, for-profit companies.1 ...

"The Federal Reserve Board concurs that a stronger regulatory framework for the GSEs is needed, and we hope to see a bill passed this year that addresses the important public policy issues raised by the operations of these entities...

"Unlike other private firms, however, the GSEs face little or no market discipline from their senior debt holders because of the belief among market participants that the U.S. government will back these institutions under almost any circumstances..."
FRB: Speech, Bernanke--GSE Portfolios, Systemic Risk, and Affordable Housing--March 6, 2007 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/Bernanke20070306a.htm)

Again, no free market insanity or free market tweeking here. Evidently, Congress refused to listen.