Jump to content

The Official Obama Scorecard Thread


Recommended Posts

That's incorrect. It was a loan that was going to make the government money.
All of the "bailouts" have taken the form of investments, e.g. the ownership stake in GM. Bailout does not mean donation. It just means the government is providing money to prevent the business from going under, not that it doesn't get anything in return.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.   I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to

All of the "bailouts" have taken the form of investments, e.g. the ownership stake in GM. Bailout does not mean donation. It just means the government is providing money to prevent the business from going under, not that it doesn't get anything in return.
You can spin this however you want, but TARP was a loan that required payback. None of the 'stimulus' plans since have been anything but handouts.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Defi.jpg
Even if any of that were true why would Obama continue with Bush's policies? Maybe he is a Bush follower, that pretty much blows out of the water any change thing everyone hyped him with.
Link to post
Share on other sites
TARP was not a bailout.
Let's be honest: TARP was as much of a bailout as the GM bailout. I know you don't like to admit Republicans do bad things, but in this case the difference between Bush's TARP and Obama's bailouts is a matter of rhetoric, not substance.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Defi.jpg
This graph is totally random and unexplainable. Could we get a context and references? Pretty much every slice of that pie is opinion and needs explanation.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's be honest: TARP was as much of a bailout as the GM bailout. I know you don't like to admit Republicans do bad things, but in this case the difference between Bush's TARP and Obama's bailouts is a matter of rhetoric, not substance.
The bolded definitely isn't true, and neither is the other stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP
Link to post
Share on other sites
The bolded definitely isn't true, and neither is the other stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP
Bureaucratic details, phony labeling... I don't care what you call it, taking money from successful hard-working taxpayers to prop up failing institutions that happen to have close political ties to those in power is a moral insult. It's crony capitalism and an affront to the American system, whether you call it TARP, bailouts, stimulus, theft, a loan, or an investment.Playing word games to defend the indefensible is very dangerous.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bureaucratic details, phony labeling... I don't care what you call it, taking money from successful hard-working taxpayers to prop up failing institutions that happen to have close political ties to those in power is a moral insult. It's crony capitalism and an affront to the American system, whether you call it TARP, bailouts, stimulus, theft, a loan, or an investment.Playing word games to defend the indefensible is very dangerous.
I agree with the bolded. But I don't believe that lending institutions are doing that to their customers and I don't believe the SBA is doing that to businesses across the country. Gift vs. Loan.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with the bolded. But I don't believe that lending institutions are doing that to their customers and I don't believe the SBA is doing that to businesses across the country. Gift vs. Loan.
That sounds suspiciously like the reasoning in the Kelo case: we're not taking the community's land, we doing good for the community, the community will get it all back.We're not stealing from taxpayers, we're just helping some politically connected banks that made bad decisions, the taxpayers will get it all back.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That sounds suspiciously like the reasoning in the Kelo case: we're not taking the community's land, we doing good for the community, the community will get it all back.We're not stealing from taxpayers, we're just helping some politically connected banks that made bad decisions, the taxpayers will get it all back.
...or maybe once the toll road is paid for we won't charge tolls anymore. I understand what you're saying, but I still hold that their is a major difference between loan and gift. And my position has nothing to do with Bush or republicans. I hated that Bush had the opportunity to be fiscally conservative, especially in 2000-2004, when he had congress as well, and they didn't drastically cut spending. (other than the war effort)
Link to post
Share on other sites
...or maybe once the toll road is paid for we won't charge tolls anymore. I understand what you're saying, but I still hold that their is a major difference between loan and gift. And my position has nothing to do with Bush or republicans. I hated that Bush had the opportunity to be fiscally conservative, especially in 2000-2004, when he had congress as well, and they didn't drastically cut spending. (other than the war effort)
So if Obama increased the deficit by another trillion dollars to give a "loan" to the UAW, to be paid back at a profitable 1% ten years from now, you'd be fine with that?
Link to post
Share on other sites
So if Obama increased the deficit by another trillion dollars to give a "loan" to the UAW, to be paid back at a profitable 1% ten years from now, you'd be fine with that?
1. I believe it was 4%, but I could be wrong.2. If the UAW had any sort of relevance to anything, but especially to the backbone of the economic infrastructure of the entire country... then still no. Because I didn't say I supported TARP. I said that it wasn't the same as a handout. I also disagree that TARP was just handouts to companies that supported Bush, because it wasn't.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I believe it was 4%, but I could be wrong.2. If the UAW had any sort of relevance to anything, but especially to the backbone of the economic infrastructure of the entire country... then still no. Because I didn't say I supported TARP. I said that it wasn't the same as a handout. I also disagree that TARP was just handouts to companies that supported Bush, because it wasn't.
But, but.. Goldman Sachs, Dan Quail, Henry Paulson, RAGE!
Link to post
Share on other sites
This graph is totally random and unexplainable. Could we get a context and references? Pretty much every slice of that pie is opinion and needs explanation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business...tml?_r=1&hphttp://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives...get-deficit.php
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with the bolded. But I don't believe that lending institutions are doing that to their customers and I don't believe the SBA is doing that to businesses across the country. Gift vs. Loan.
How is it a gift if they gained a majority stake in the company? Isn't a purchase even better than a loan? I don't see a substantive difference.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are saying Obama is stupid?
I haven't said anything in my last two posts?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of a single unintended consequence of this plan. Anyone? Anyone at all?

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is seeking to help pay for his health care plan by sharply reducing the government's medical spending, mainly by trimming payments to prescription drugmakers, hospitals and other care providers.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't think of a single unintended consequence of this plan. Anyone? Anyone at all?
In the past six years, eight people from Austin and one from Luling racked up 2,678 emergency room visits in Central Texas, costing hospitals, taxpayers and others $3 million,
Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, that makes more sense than the graph alone. If you want to realistic about this, then, the orange, blue, and gray areas should all be lumped together under "Obama's budget".If you want to be even more realistic, the president signs the bill, and is responsible for 100% of it. Blaming it on past administrations is a game for people insist that government can never be cut, ever. If you are president, and your budget doesn't balance, you get all of that on your head.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama +1That historic speech influenced the Iranian election. Here is Obama's comment on it.

OBAMA: And obviously after the speech that I, uh, made in Cairo we tried to send a clear message that we think there is the possibility of change, uhhh, aaaand -- ehhh, yuh-- oh -- Ultimately the election is for the Iranians to decide, uh, but, uh, just a-as has been true in Lebanon, what's, uh -- can be true in Iran as well is that you're seeing people looking at new possibilities. And, uh, whoever, uh, ends up winning, uh, the election in Iran, uh, the fact that there's been a robust debate hopefully will help, uh, advance our ability to engage them in new ways.
Yes, Obama is taking credit for the Iranian election results.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama +1That historic speech influenced the Iranian election. Here is Obama's comment on it.Yes, Obama is taking credit for the Iranian election results.
Lol well it did make Akmenijad look like an ass.
Link to post
Share on other sites
How is it a gift if they gained a majority stake in the company? Isn't a purchase even better than a loan? I don't see a substantive difference.
hahaha.... good one.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...