Bush's ironic concern

[30ashopper]

The lending they are most concerned about is commercial lending - companies borrow for all kinds of things like expansion of business and making payroll. The interest on these loans is now so high that it's prohibitive - meaning companies have to balance the books without borrowing. That means selling off assets, laying off workers, cancelling plans for expansion, etc..

One of the other big hidden "what ifs" of this is - the treasury will have to borrow to finance it, and will have to hold this stuff for a while, driving up our deficit. What effect will that have on the value of the dollar, and the cost of borrowing money by the federal government? Those two factors could drive the cost of this to taxpayers way way way up.

 

[scooterbug44]

companies have to balance the books without borrowing.

God forbid! :roll:

Any chance we could come out of this w/ a renewed sense of fiscal reality and responsibility? I know debt and loans are part of business, especially during start-ups, expansions, and hard times, but those 3 cover most of a company's life span.

 

[30ashopper]

God forbid! :roll:

Any chance we could come out of this w/ a renewed sense of fiscal reality and responsibility? I know debt and loans are part of business, especially during start-ups, expansions, and hard times, but those 3 cover most of a company's life span.

Americans might, but I fear financial insitutions will walk away from this quitely giggling to themselves. That's the real travesty of it.

The way I see it, we have a choice - we take the gamble (and the potential loss) of this plan, and hope it keeps us out of a major recession. Alternatively, we do less or nothing, the country slides into the mother of all recessions with 15% unemployment, and an economic malise that lasts years.

The sad part is, we may end up in the mother of all recessions if the gamble doesn't pay off, which would be exacerbated by the financial state of the federal government. Basically -

1) we do and it works, and we avoid a major recession.
2) we do less or nothing, and potentially end up in the mother of all recessions.
3) we do it and it fails, and we experience a financial doomsday.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. There are no good answers here. It's a complete mess. From what I'm hearing on the blogs, it looks like Congress is going to bet the farm on door number one.

 

[Bdarg]

So calling Nancy Pelosi and telling her..."Call me if you need me" was the proper response????

True leadership there

McCain is in the senate, so it would be Reid, not Pelosi. However since McCain is a republican it would be the minority leader that he would call so that would be Boehner, if I remember correctly.

 

[Bob]

Americans might, but I fear financial insitutions will walk away from this quitely giggling to themselves. That's the real travesty of it.

The way I see it, we have a choice - we take the gamble (and the potential loss) of this plan, and hope it keeps us out of a major recession. Alternatively, we do less or nothing, the country slides into the mother of all recessions with 15% unemployment, and an economic malise that lasts years.

The sad part is, we may end up in the mother of all recessions if the gamble doesn't pay off, which would be exacerbated by the financial state of the federal government. Basically -

1) we do and it works, and we avoid a major recession.
2) we do less or nothing, and potentially end up in the mother of all recessions.
3) we do it and it fails, and we experience a financial doomsday.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. There are no good answers here. It's a complete mess. From what I'm hearing on the blogs, it looks like Congress is going to bet the farm on door number one.

it's the easy way out and the same thinking that drove us to the edge

 

[idlewind]

This is what is so frustrating, if you were so appalled why did you put him back in office, his lack of focus and involving us in Iraq took place before the last election. You chose Bush over McCain in 2000 because W's supporters called him the "gay candidate, said his Banladeshi daughter was black, that he was mentally unstable because of his 5-1/2 yrs. as a pow, Rove suggested he fathered a child with a black prostitute and committed treason as a pow among many other things. Now McCain is a war hero to conservatives but there was a war hero in the last election but the same type of false smears reappeared, he didn't earn his Purple Hearts, the swift boating and on and on.
It was absolutely pathetic when delegates wore purple heart bandaids.
Not believing Kerry would be a good President is no reason to belittle his service to our country with lies. The one thing Bush could have done last night to prove he cared about this nation would have been to resign and hand over the Presidency to Dick Cha----wait a damn minute, what the hell am I saying! Forget that. I need a beer or two or three....

I did not support Bush in the 2000 primary season and have voted for him twice as the "lesser of two evils." By the way, I was never a fan of his Daddy either, but that is history for sure.

 

[traderx]

McCain is in the senate, so it would be Reid, not Pelosi. However since McCain is a republican it would be the minority leader that he would call so that would be Boehner, if I remember correctly.

Boehner is also in the House. I believe the ranking Senate member is Mitch McConnel.

 

[Bobskunk]

Convenient Scapegoat

Yes, go ahead and pin this on one man. Forget congress, and the fact that they are in control. By the way, I fault both parties, however one would have to be a liar or ignorant to oversimplify this. The following clip shows just one disturbing aspect of this debacle, and I believe that this was the catalyst for all of it. I say catalyst, because it took a lot of greed to keep it going. Look at who ran Fannie Mae. Wake up.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0"]YouTube - Explosive Video, Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the Dems the "Family" and "Conscience" of Fannie Mae[/ame]

 

[poppy]

I did not support Bush in the 2000 primary season and have voted for him twice as the "lesser of two evils." By the way, I was never a fan of his Daddy either, but that is history for sure.

You voted against him before you voted for him? I've heard that before, :scratch:just can't remember where. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still considered voting for evil. I don't think any of our candidates have ever been evil, misguided maybe.

 

[idlewind]

You voted against him before you voted for him? I've heard that before, :scratch:just can't remember where. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still considered voting for evil. I don't think any of our candidates have ever been evil, misguided maybe.

I did not say anyone was evvvvilllll, I used a famous quotation, hence the "quotes." For what it is worth, I did not vote for McCain in the primaries either, but I will vote for him in November. I consider him less "misquided" than Obama.