You look like a CLOWN making such an argument. You continue to conveniently make "ASSumptions" and claim that they are FACTUAL . . . and then take that one assumption and apply it to something totally different and totally irrelevant ( like the fact that the American public was against the "bail-out" ). It's pretty twisted logic for sure. Congrats. You have claimed in a previouus post that Paulson and Geithner wear the same "stripes" and yet you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the LEH situation . . . But leave it to you to say that it (LEH) was merely a detail.
I can't believe I'm going to (kind of) defend the old guy, but Senior Bush I think deserves at least a little credit. Or if you prefer, a bit less blame. Of the four, he was the only one who actually showed some backbone in slowing down gov't spending. He lost the battle, in the end, but he went down swinging with the gov't shutdown etc. And Reagan most definitely belongs in this list, as he started the US down the Ponzi scheme path of "lock boxing" tax revenues into Treasuries. I agree with this. Otherwise we're going to be in perpetual crisis mode for the next 2-4 years and then end up with an uncontrolled depression anyway.
that's absolutly right the problem is a failed economic model, trade deficits financed with credit to keep the consumer market alive it wasnt an if but a when, and when just arrived allocating limited rescources and options toward pumping an leaking balloon only risks that we lose everything
so let us hear your solution. How do you think Obama should clean up the mess Bush and the Republican congress created?
Pabst, you make the assumption that a Depression can be controlled . . . Given the amount of debt and leverage out there, I do not believe that is possible. Back to trading.
Too funny RC but within a few minutes of my post I was thinking the VERY SAME THOUGHTS. The Reagan admin wasn't exactly on the same page as the restrictive Volker Fed either. Faux supply siders found their political if not idealogical equal in Greenspan......
in a snowstorm of this magniture, LEH is just a detail but your head of wood will not understand that, and i dont want to start friction that might set it on fire you're on ignore
LEH was just a detail you claim. Hmmmm . . . How convenient for you . . . because in that way you can continue to stick your "pea-brain" into the sand when it is known that Geithner did not agree with Paulson when it came to allowing LEH to go under . . . But leave it to you to claim that Paulson and Geithner are the "same" person, just different party. Congrats. Once a CLOWN, always a CLOWN.