Clinton Wins First Debate in a Landslide According to CNN Poll and Focus Groups

[Shadow Wolf]

If it wasn't for the "bailout" for the auto industry here by the Obama administration, which was opposed by most of the Republicans, we'd be in the same boat. As it's turned out, most of the newer good paying jobs here are through the auto industry that the Republicans were willing to let collapse.

BTW, the CBO had stated in a congressional hearing that "bailing out" the auto industry was more cost-effective for the government than letting them go under, even though that sounds counter-intuitive.

If the auto industry failed, this place would have sunk. That, combined with the banking failures and house crisis, screams it's time we need to start doing things differently economically, but we're being set up for another failure as I type this.

 

[Riders]

I disagreed Obaumas bail outs for banks. Its called work, if you go bankrupt you did yourself out, how did we come up with well if I do horrible job keeping my bank open the President will rescue me and my bank with millions of dollars he stills from the country.

They got themselves into it, they can bail themselves out, that's not a good work ethic.

 

[tytlyf]

Bush was responsible for the wall street bailout
Bush and Obama were responsible for the auto industry bailout.
Trump supported both.

 

[idav]

I thought this was pretty funny!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I thought this was pretty funny!

Anyone see Russia?

 

[metis]

I disagreed Obaumas bail outs for banks. Its called work, if you go bankrupt you did yourself out, how did we come up with well if I do horrible job keeping my bank open the President will rescue me and my bank with millions of dollars he stills from the country.

They got themselves into it, they can bail themselves out, that's not a good work ethic.

We really had no choice as 3 of the 4 largest banks were in collapse to the point that our entire economic house-of-cards could have gone down to the point of possibly even being worse than the Great Depression, according to some economists. IMO, we should have temporarily nationalized them, broke them up into smaller components, and then resold them.

 

[metis]

Bush was responsible for the wall street bailout
Bush and Obama were responsible for the auto industry bailout.
Trump supported both.

With the auto industry, Bush only put in enough to keep them afloat for several months until the next administration could decide what to do. However, without that extension of aid, the entire U.S. auto industry was in trouble, even including the foreign transplants.

 

[Revoltingest]

We really had no choice as 3 of the 4 largest banks were in collapse to the point that our entire economic house-of-cards could have gone down to the point of possibly even being worse than the Great Depression, according to some economists. IMO, we should have temporarily nationalized them, broke them up into smaller components, and then resold them.

To say there was "no choice" is just rationalization for the choice one wants, ie, government bailouts.
If the banks had failed, it wouldn't cause any long term harm. Unlike industrial companies, banks'
assets survive the banks' failure, eg, deposits, loans receivable, real estate.
These assets would be just as productive in the hands of new owners.
And the money given them could've instead been used to assist borrowers
in trouble. After all, their inability to make loan payments caused the banks
to fail in the first place. So I say that if a bailout is to be, then use it to address
the cause, & not the symptom.

 

[Revoltingest]

With the auto industry, Bush only put in enough to keep them afloat for several months until the next administration could decide what to do. However, without that extension of aid, the entire U.S. auto industry was in trouble, even including the foreign transplants.

The industry as a whole was not in trouble, eg, Ford
was in strong financial condition, & needed no bailout.

 

[metis]

The role of credit-default swaps and also how an insurance company like AIG simply could not be allowed to fail, and also having billions of dollars suddenly disappearing as we saw through the Wall Street collapse, simply cannot be ignored. And a reminder that it was the collapse of Wall Street that started the downward spiral that led to the Great Depression, so the collapse of credit is of terrible importance here.

As compared to the situation prior to the Great Depression, we actually had a higher percentage of our economy tied up in credit just prior to the Great Recession, and much of many peoples' retirement money was wrapped up in this as well, and also so were paychecks in business whereas so many of them had borrowed money to meet weekly paychecks because then they could invest their profits and get more back in return by doing it that way largely because interest rates were and are so low.

So, what I cam citing is not just from Keynesian economists but also from conservative economists like Paulson and Bernanke, both Republicans btw, and both of which warned legislators of impending doom if there was no government injection of money to keep the boat afloat. It was the latter who predicted that, without this, we could actually have ended up in worse shape than during the Great Depression, and Bernanke is recognized as being one of the foremost authorities on what is called "depression economics" because that's his specialization.

One simply has to understand that our economic system very much is like a house of cards, that can typically take relatively minor hits, but heaven forbid if it's a big hit. Just take a look at how much damage the hit we did take did to both our and the world's economies for proof if one were to have a doubt about what these economists have stated.

 

[tytlyf]

With the auto industry, Bush only put in enough to keep them afloat for several months until the next administration could decide what to do. However, without that extension of aid, the entire U.S. auto industry was in trouble, even including the foreign transplants.

Yep, and Obama's loan was back back in full....with interest.

 

[Revoltingest]

The role of credit-default swaps and also how an insurance company like AIG simply could not be allowed to fail, and also having billions of dollars suddenly disappearing as we saw through the Wall Street collapse, simply cannot be ignored. And a reminder that it was the collapse of Wall Street that started the downward spiral that led to the Great Depression, so the collapse of credit is of terrible importance here.

As compared to the situation prior to the Great Depression, we actually had a higher percentage of our economy tied up in credit just prior to the Great Recession, and much of many peoples' retirement money was wrapped up in this as well, and also so were paychecks in business whereas so many of them had borrowed money to meet weekly paychecks because then they could invest their profits and get more back in return by doing it that way largely because interest rates were and are so low.

So, what I cam citing is not just from Keynesian economists but also from conservative economists like Paulson and Bernanke, both Republicans btw, and both of which warned legislators of impending doom if there was no government injection of money to keep the boat afloat. It was the latter who predicted that, without this, we could actually have ended up in worse shape than during the Great Depression, and Bernanke is recognized as being one of the foremost authorities on what is called "depression economics" because that's his specialization.

One simply has to understand that our economic system very much is like a house of cards, that can typically take relatively minor hits, but heaven forbid if it's a big hit. Just take a look at how much damage the hit we did take did to both our and the world's economies for proof if one were to have a doubt about what these economists have stated.

Given AIG's role as an insurer, this is one of the bailouts with the most strategic value to the economy.
But even better would've been to bail out the many defaulting borrowers, instead of only large lenders,
who would've been safe if the borrowers were healthy. This shows why crony capitalism is so wrong.

 

[metis]

Yep, and Obama's loan was back back in full....with interest.

Absolutely. Plus the CBO had made it clear to Congress that it would cost more to let them default.

During the CBO's testimony to Congress, they explained that the cost to the country w/o providing the "bailout" would projected to be about double the cost. I watched that testimony on C-Span, especially because I spend most of my time near Detroit. The housing market here took a heavy hit as business after business and suppler after supplier closed their doors, and the prognosis w/o the loans was that it would have gotten far worse with the federal injection of funds.

One of the fears they mentioned was that so many of the parts suppliers to the auto industry in general would collapse because of losing major accounts, which would have a ripple-effect throughout, not only the industry, but also the economy in general. Even companies like Honda, Toyota, etc. get many of their parts from these same companies, so their own production would have been severely affected for an estimated two years, according to the CBO.

Well, in two years, with massive layoffs snowballing, what effect would that have on our economy? How long would the downhill slide take before stopping? We already saw how much damage it has done even with the government injection of money, so why would any serious economist think for one minute that somehow it would just miraculously turn out fine & dandy on it's own?