Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WH caught off gurard again. Geech!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
biopowertoday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 09:56 PM
Original message
WH caught off gurard again. Geech!!



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/sunday-roundup_b_177667.html

Arianna Huffington


Sunday Roundup



Barack Obama's Special Olympics line on Leno got all the headlines, but the night's real money quote was his saying that his administration plans to "set up a securitized market for student loans and auto loans outside of the banking system" in order to "get credit flowing again."


Excuse me, but isn't that what the $700 billion bank bailout was supposed to do? So what happened? Instead of lending the billions we gave them, Obama explained to Leno, the bailed out banks "are keeping it in the bank because their balance sheets had gotten so bad." Imagine that: zombie banks using taxpayer money to stay afloat. If the White House really didn't see that one coming, it's no wonder the ferocity of the public's reaction to the AIG bonuses caught them so off-guard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. Er, how is that the White House "caught off guard?"
Edited on Sun Mar-22-09 10:02 PM by Occam Bandage
That's more like, "Arianna Huffington disagrees with Obama's rationalization for setting up a government-run secondary loan market, or more to the point is using that rationalization to attack a bank bailout passed months ago that she dislikes."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asphalt.jungle Donating Member (792 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. caught off guard? wtf are you talking about?
2 plus 2 does not equal 5.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. Actually, the purpose of the money was to keep the banks afloat, not
for them to lend specifically.

At least that was my understanding at the time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. It was to keep them from failing. It was hoped that lending would start up again
but there was never a guarantee. This post from HP makes no sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Some of this criticism is just becoming deranged. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
biopowertoday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. but isn't that what she is saying. The big 700 B was to get credit
flowing again (start lending). Now Pres. Obama is setting up another mechanism with hopes of getting credit flowing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. How is taking a multifaceted approach to a problem a bad thing?
It's not like FDR passed the Emergency Banking Act, and then said, "well, that's it, either that'll recover the economy or it won't" and then sat on his ass until things got better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
biopowertoday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. all and all it is probably a good thing in the long run. Yet, it
just seems we keep pouring money into a black hole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. This money is coming from the TARP funds that have already been authorized,
Edited on Sun Mar-22-09 10:23 PM by Occam Bandage
if my understanding is correct (and a quick Google suggests it is). I think backing small-business and education loans is a good use of it; it encourages lending, it drives the economy, it invests in the future, and it should all end up being repaid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. FDR experimented like crazy except we did not have such a corporate media
back then. Heck, half the stuff was kept secret from us. Woodrow Wilson had a debilitating stroke and his wife pretty much ran the show after that. Not sure if that was good either but the media certainly let FDR try new things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I was thinking about that a few days ago. "Man, they'd have torn FDR to shreds for 'flailing'
around. He proposed all sorts of off-the-wall stuff, much of which didn't work or wasn't even legal. If he had today's instant-results-oriented media/internet pressure, he'd have been dead in the water by 1934."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Yup. But he was willing to try anything to get us out from under the Depression.
And he gave people confidence. No one questioned the confidence because if we did not have it we were screwed, it was all we had then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Um of course he is. What do you expect him to do? Say the hell with getting credit following again?
Its not his fault Paulson didn't do what he was suppose to do with the money
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. Are we talking about last fall's bailout under Bush!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
5. i am not so sure it did catch them off guard.
Edited on Sun Mar-22-09 10:06 PM by zeemike
Perhaps the outrage is helpful in convincing the culture on Wall Street to rethink their way of life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soccermomforobama Donating Member (327 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. Where the hell was Arianna Huffington when Obama made his
speech to the Joint Session of Congress in February? He made the same comment during that speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just-plain-Kathy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. Here's where I wish Obama was more like Bush...
...If money was promised to say -soldiers...Bush would be dictatorial and just take the money back. Why can't Obama do the right thing and go over these bailouts with a fine tooth comb?

Obama's not holding Bushco accountable...he's going to keep our soldiers in Iraq until the next election, I could scream!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. They are monitoring, scrutinizing the bailouts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
11. OP subjects like yours are red flags for the apologists crew. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Meaningless, hyperbolic, and unrelated to the petty criticism in the article?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. ROFL. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I'll take that as a "yes."
Or, at least, an "I didn't read the article."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
17. Another silly day in the ihateobama forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. I've found that some people just have to be outraged.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
19. WTF? The title of your post makes no sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-22-09 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
22. Student and auto loans aside, I think thousands of small businesses
need a weekly flow of money from banks just to keep operating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
27. Um, it is really quite simple.
700 B was needed to keep the banks from collapsing immediately. In order to avoid collapse, banks needed to keep the 700 B "in the bank" so as to have enough capital to survive. But it was not enough to get lending going again. That's where Obama's second program comes in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-23-09 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
28. Hey didn't the bailout start on Bush's watch?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC