Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (534932)	12/7/2009 9:56:38 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575310

New numbers this morning are that TARP expects to lose ~$40Billion. Chump change compared to a depression. Okay, so Bush saved us with TARP. That's great. But why do the liberals now think that borrowed money is just there to blow? Even though Bush created the program in such a way that taxpayers end up getting most of it back, it STILL becomes part of the national debt because the abject incompetents in Congress & the WH just fell ass-backward into billions of dollars they think they have no accountability for. And these are the people you want to turn 2.5 Trillion/year in health care funds to?

To: Road Walker who wrote (534932)	12/7/2009 11:25:58 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575310

RW, > Even in your hyper partisan hallucinatory state you will admit there was at the least a risk of a depression, right? Of course there was. Exchange one risk for another with bailouts. People talk as if the federal government did something extraordinary to deal with extraordinary circumstances. I really don't see it that way. The Feds have a long history of being the lender of last resort. Now the risk here is that we've moved the bar when it comes to how much federal debt we'll tolerate. And when the effects of that are felt, who's going to come and bail us out? No need to pretend that I didn't object when Bush increased deficits to pay for his adventures. Of course I objected. Many times. Now we see the political results, and later we'll see the fiscal results. Maybe by then Krugman will have rediscovered his anti-deficit stance. Tenchusatsu

To: Road Walker who wrote (534932)	12/7/2009 11:41:12 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575310

Even in your hyper partisan hallucinatory state you will admit there was at the least a risk of a depression, right? There's always a "risk" of a depression. Some thought we were heading to one after the Clinton bubble exploded. Where is the evidence that government spending can avoid a depression, anyway? You may be able to put off the inevitable. Or you may dump a future depression on your own kids that is much deeper and even more tragic. It is naive to assume that the core problem in our economy -- a general fiscal irresponsibility within government -- can be cured with a $700 Billion short-term loan. Doesn't work that way. These are systemic problems that are not fixed, just masked by an infusion of cash. We still have $12 Trillion in hard debt, $50 Trillion in unfunded liabilities for social programs that have effectively collapsed into insolvency, and no leadership that is capable of bringing us out of the mess.