OK, it's time to vote

Not to mention the most important fact missing from that statement...

The nearly trillion dollar bank bailout was signed by PRESIDENT BUSH.

I know I just blew a lot of minds around here with that statement...but it's true.

Sorry Zach... you are an awesome resource on this forum, but completely wrong here.

Again... do you realize the economy collapsed in 2008? That was BEFORE Obama took office.

 

Hope you dont think I'm trying to start a pissing match about Bush vs Obama, but I think you are misunderstanding the stimulus bills -- yes...two of them.

The first one was the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 signed in Oct 2008 by Bush. This is what is known as the Bank bailout. The gov spent 700 billion buying bad assets and pumping money into failing banks.

The second bill, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, was signed by Obama. This is what is known as the "Stimulus." This is the bill you are thinking of that provided federal funds to fix sidewalks, roads, parks etc . A huge chunk of it also went to tax cuts and tax credits for most americans. You can actually see where all the money is going here:

http://www.recovery.gov/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008


It's amazing to me how many people have the "wool" pulled over their eyes about this.

 

http://www.recovery.gov/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008


It's amazing to me how many people have the "wool" pulled over their eyes about this





---
Fair enough, but the one IMPORTANT figure that you left out of you Stimulus is that is cost $787 billion.

 

Yeah.... I had meant to include that because it's interesting to me that both of those bills are about the same amount...

I could go back and edit, but that would just make these last two messages seem random.

 

And in October, 2008 when Bush signed the Bill, it was written like so:

The U.S. government was to "aquire" these assets. So the way the documents were written, we were all told that this would be a government bailout, where the U.S. would aquier $700 Billion in properties, and then have the authority to process these properties accordingly, thus taking on the profits or financial responsibilities...

It was looked at as an INVESTMENT for the U.S. economy... People kept their homes, and the government would take on "collections" and administrative duties...

Now somewhere between fall 2008, and spring 2009, all of the properties were still in the hansd of all of the banks...

So at first glance, I can see how you would again blame bush for this... but what He signed off on, and what actually happened are two different things...

And again, correct me if im wrong please. I love to learn and I love to think. I have an open mind and opinions can change...
]
But with that being said, wasn't it Obama who stood on the podium in 09, while carrying out the act of 08, explaining to us how we just simply can't let wall-street fail. Bush was long gone then..... Im not saying that I agreed with the original bill. I DONT...Its dumb for Obama, its dumb for Bush... Agreed...

But again, can we at least agree, that the original terms of the emergency 08 act WERE NOT CARRIED out... The government never benefitted from this at all. It just passed the open debt back to the banks in 2009 to keep raking in interest rates...

Again... Im not a home owner, so I feel like the victim here. I am not sure what is really happening in those banks... I would love to know.

 

From Wiki... This is the part that was SUPPOSED to happen. Never did. The mortgages never left the hands of the Banks... Bush signed off on a government aquisition... All of which, was never aquired in 2009 by the current administration....

 

I'll be honest.... the specifics of the bill and economics in general are way over my head.

I would think if the gov't views by those mortgage securities as an investment, albeit a risky one, they wouldn't want to sell them right away. If you bought a house in late 2008, it wouldn't be wise from a financial stand point to sell it now because it is probably worth less than what you bought it for. As an investor you would hold onto it until it's value picks up.

Again.... i really don't know what im talking about here. I'm certainly no economist so I dont have an opinion on whether or not the bailout was a good idea. It seems expert economists fall on both sides of the question. As bad as things are now, they certainly could have been a lot WORSE without the bailout. I know many American's wouldn't be happy if their banks started closing and unemployment approached depression era levels. But... that's all hypothetical.

 

head dip

head dip.....

 

Way over my head too, which is why I enjoy at least discussing it. It at least encourages us all to do a little homework...

And I also agree with you. Im just saying, regardless of what side you are on, we all have tons of unanswered questions... thanks for the discussion tho. Good stuff.

 

That was perfect timing on that post! Nice!

 

i love the stats on top, showing that the majority prefers "none of the above" Im right there with you, too.