The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[vbnautilus 48]

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.

[brvheart 1,755]

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.

[Sheiky 0]

[NickZepp 0]

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.

[hblask 1]

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.

[hblask 1]

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.

[brvheart 1,755]

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

[hblask 1]

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.

[brvheart 1,755]

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.

[hblask 1]

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.

[brvheart 1,755]

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)

[hblask 1]

...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?

[brvheart 1,755]

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.

[El Guapo 8]

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!

[Sheiky 0]

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

[vbnautilus 48]

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.

[NickZepp 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business...tml?_r=1&hphttp://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives...get-deficit.php

So you are saying Obama is stupid?

[Sheiky 0]

So you are saying Obama is stupid?

I haven't said anything in my last two posts?

[Sal Paradise 57]

I haven't said anything in my last two posts?

WHAT'D YOU CALL MY GRANDMA???

[hblask 1]

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.

[Balloon guy 158]

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,

[hblask 1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business...tml?_r=1&hphttp://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives...get-deficit.php

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.

[Balloon guy 158]

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.

[Nimue1995 1]

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.

[brvheart 1,755]

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.