oh my bad, you don't agree with obama so i guess he's wrong. well the sane people in the group are happy he voted for TARP.
I don't really get it - you are saying that the banking sector should have been allowed to fail causing mega-massive chaos worse even than currently, and that now, steps being taken to reform the system and to ensure that the beneficiaries bear some of the cost - "rings hollow" What would you prefer? the banks to be allowed to fail, and then zero governmetn intervention or regulation in the aftermath? I guess that would not 'ring hollow" but it also seems to be a complete abdication of leadership. I mean the best analogy I can think of would be a n overweight, chronically smoking patient who has cardiac arrest in the ER. The doctor breaks out the defribilator and restarts his heartbeat. A day later, the Doctor says: here's a bill for $15,000, stop smoking and lose weight. Jo mama then runs into the room and says "OMG, that tough talk rings incredibly hollow! You could have said that yesteday! doctor you are a hypocrite!"
I don't get it, I understand the republicans in the group who complain about anything he does because they have no attention of ever agreeing anyway. but the more moderate people, who claim he hasn't done enough are just ridiculous with their expectations. He's been involved in every issue he said he would Gitmo healthcare economy (stimulus) Iraq (started pull out) I don't know what you guys expect. its like those republicans who made fun of his supporters saying that his supporters thought he could wave a magic wand were correct
dude has already been on record for being disappointed everything hasn't been done in less than 3 months
you obviously know more about this than me, but do you have anything to back this up? not saying you are lying, but id like to see some articles for myself. either way, by your own admission the taxpayer is still on the hook for at least $100 billion. and we are subsidizing a nice chunk of AIG's bailout, which is one of the prime culprits who got us into this mess. and i understood the total cost of the bailout/bank rescue/ect to be in the $27 trillion range...i was never specifically talking about the TARP program by itself - pgabriel brought that up. tarp itself was a drop in the bucket compared to the total bailout, was it not?
I've said this before but they really should bring back actual filibusters instead of just raising the threat of it. Filibusters were previously as much about the physical challenge (think about Strom Thurmond dehydrating himself so he wouldn't have to take bathroom breaks) as the political challenge and one reason why Senators feel so free to use them is that they don't have to actual deal with the physical or politcal consequences of actually doing one. The spectacle of having a Chaxby Chamblis wheezing and rampling away for days should be put on C-Span to make the public understand what is actually involved in a filibuster.
no, you are mistaken, $27 Trillion is some ridiculous number pundits threw out that has the government taking a loss on every single thing they insured, including the total 700 billion in TARP
that analogy would be correct if it was the doctor who encouraged the patient for years to smoke and eat unhealthy - then breaks out the defibrillator, saves them and then chastises them for smoking and eating unhealthy.
we already had this discussion in another thread - obama has gone back on a number of his campaign promises - others he flat out lied on. but im bad for expecting him to do what he said?
the only thing it can be argued that he went back on what he said is the wiretapping. on other issues, they just aren't happening fast enough for you and that's ridiculous, especially considering the opposition he's up against
he's been in office for a year actually, but yes i am on record saying i am disappointed that he didnt follow through on much of what he promised when he was running. i am disappointed that he has continued much of bush's policies, especially when it comes to civil liberties.
Isn't it irrelevant - if the doctor is giving correct advice (finally) what difference does it make? PS I didn't know Obama was an ardent proponent of deregulation of financial markets in the early 00's, can you point me to some info on this?
because he was the one initially telling you how you should smoke and eat unhealthy food - i wouldnt put my life in the hands of someone so incompetent. i didnt realize i said he was?
I don't really get it - the "doctor" in this case is not a constant - the deregulators who thought that we could repeal glass steagall etc and everything would be awesome are generally not the same people who are now urging the Volcker rule, etc, so that argument is a non-starter. well then I don't really understand what you're arguing. It doesn't "ring hollow" to rescue the financial sector when it's in crisis then to impose new rules on it after it's out of the woods, it's called acting rationally.
whats ridiculous to me is that you could be such an apologist for the guy and get so defensive when others point out that he has not followed thru on his campaign promises. and he did lie about wiretapping, but also... he did say he would close gitmo in a year he allowed evidence gained under torture to continue to be used in court promised transparency, but refused to release millions of bush-era emails (republicans should be thanking him for this) promised to have nobody w/ questionable ethics issues, but his treasury sec. is a tax cheat
it "rings hollow" to talk tough to the banks when you have already given them everything they wanted. where was this obama we saw a few days ago for the last year?
It seems like you're just spinning rhetorical wheels - there's nothing illogical about saving the financial sector from implosion and then imposing reforms afterwards.
to bad the whole economy thing got in the way of some of his priorities link did he promise to release bush era emails, or that his admin would be transparent? what are releasing these emails going to do? tax cheat? maybe, it was more stupid than anything else that he hadn't taken care of the mistake
