Why do people associate the bailouts with Obama?

[memphis]

I have heard several people make this link as if they passed under his administration. Yes, he voted for them, but so did John "I've never been a maverick" McCain, and was signed into law under GOP president Bush. The bill was probably the only substantive matter in the last 5 years passed with more than token bipartisan support. Conversely, there was widespread opposition from both parties. It's probably too late now, but the Dems really need to emphasize that they are NOT the party of bailouts.

[fezzyfestoon]

I really don't think emphasizing that they're doing what Bush did is a good campaign idea.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Because they're too ignorant to look at both parties.

[memphis]

I really don't think emphasizing that they're doing what Bush did is a good campaign idea.

That's my whole point. The tea partiers have rewritten history to cast the Dems as the party of bailouts. In fact, the bailouts were not a partisan issue, with large numbers of people on both sides voting both ways. People are acting like Obama passed the bailouts with his Democratic Congress. Honestly, I don't think most people know the difference between the bailout and the stimulus. To be completely honest, I don't think most people know their head from their a$$.

[anvi]

Somehow I've never felt it necessary to be defensive
about this issue, regardless of whether we're talking
about legislation made under Presidents Bush or Obama.
It's true the banks and Wall street made a hash out of
mortgages, and they need to be regulated on that.  But,
to any righty or lefty who screams bloody murder about
the bank bailouts, I simply ask in return: "what happens
to the finances of individuals, and to a free market economy,
when the banks fail?"  Be pissed at the banks, by all means,
but we don't solve the problem by effectively favoring
suicide.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Because Obama associates himself with the bailouts.

[Mint]

Because Obama associates himself with the bailouts.

And the Democrats were more pro-bailout than the Republicans, although that's not saying much considering almost every Republican presidential candidate at the time (and most of the ones we're discussing now!) endorsed them.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Because Obama associates himself with the bailouts.

And the Democrats were more pro-bailout than the Republicans, although that's not saying much considering almost every Republican presidential candidate at the time (and most of the ones we're discussing now!) endorsed them.

It's easy to forget how popular the bailouts were when they were discussed. It was the first and only time that both parties united and bipartisan(well somewhat) because of the recession. It's strange that some sort of third party movement hasn't been started yet with all of the terrible messages that both parties have sent to the average person, that they will unite to save rich investors, but will bicker for months over unemployment benefits. I guess the teabaggers count in a way but it's been a pretty bland ultra-conservative/far-right movement since its beginning.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Because voters are stupid, for the most part, and a certain large media organization is all too eager to let this perception persist. (Or, for that matter, to not talk about the objectively positive benefits of some of those "bailouts" or refuse to call literally every single thing now, a "bailout.")

[Lief 🗽]

The real problem here is that being associated with the bailouts is a bad thing, considering that they ended up being a pretty successful policy.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I have heard several people make this link as if they passed under his administration. Yes, he voted for them, but so did John "I've never been a maverick" McCain, and was signed into law under GOP president Bush. The bill was probably the only substantive matter in the last 5 years passed with more than token bipartisan support. Conversely, there was widespread opposition from both parties. It's probably too late now, but the Dems really need to emphasize that they are NOT the party of bailouts.

Obama didn't just vote for the bailouts, he was a leading shill for their passage on behalf of his clients at Goldman Sachs. It was the first time that Obama made it blatantly obvious that there was no difference between himself and McCain/Bush. Since then all of his policies have followed suit in the construction of a corporatist state.

Generally the people who oppose the bailouts are the freethinking independent-minded Americans, while the people who support them are either Wall Street parasites or braindead partisans who support them because Bush or Obama told them to.

[Beet]

The accurate description is that Democrats are not pro bailout, but less anti bailout because they have less of an instinctive reaction to governmental intervention, but they are still pretty anti bailout. Even people like me that think the bailouts were a (mostly) successful policy and supported them still think what happened was horrendous.

The reaction against bailouts is very natural, the same thing happened with Hoover's (later FDR's) Reconstruction Finance Corporation of 1932-34, which history tends to hail as one of the greatest successes of the New Deal (all the loans were eventually paid back with interest), but at the time were denounced as giveaways to banksters. Or the Japanese bailouts of 1998, which came so long after the bursting of the bubble precisely because politicians didn't want to take such an unpopular step until the problems become unavoidable.

It's natural to see massive transfers of money to speculators and bubble-builders as grossly unfair, because they are. It's not that the rage is unjustified, it's that most people don't see the alternative of banking collapse. Few people even intellectually appreciate how much the economy would drop if there had been no bailouts, and of those people, almost no people, if any, can emotionally appreciate how devastating (and unfair) it would have been.

[Mint]

Because voters are stupid, for the most part, and a certain large media organization is all too eager to let this perception persist. (Or, for that matter, to not talk about the objectively positive benefits of some of those "bailouts" or refuse to call literally every single thing now, a "bailout.")

Yes marokai, blame the voters like always.

[Mint]

Because Obama associates himself with the bailouts.

And the Democrats were more pro-bailout than the Republicans, although that's not saying much considering almost every Republican presidential candidate at the time (and most of the ones we're discussing now!) endorsed them.

It's easy to forget how popular the bailouts were when they were discussed. It was the first and only time that both parties united and bipartisan(well somewhat) because of the recession. It's strange that some sort of third party movement hasn't been started yet with all of the terrible messages that both parties have sent to the average person, that they will unite to save rich investors, but will bicker for months over unemployment benefits. I guess the teabaggers count in a way but it's been a pretty bland ultra-conservative/far-right movement since its beginning.

I think it will happen eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Ross Perot figure by 2012 although it certainly doesn't seem like anyone is interested. I think in the short term you'll probably see more of an effort to move the Democrats in a more 'progressive' direction though, you can already sort of sense that in Obama's defensive and angry comments about the 'professional left.'

[Marokai Backbeat]

Because voters are stupid, for the most part, and a certain large media organization is all too eager to let this perception persist. (Or, for that matter, to not talk about the objectively positive benefits of some of those "bailouts" or refuse to call literally every single thing now, a "bailout.")

Yes marokai, blame the voters like always.

Spare me the faux populist outrage and how-dare-yous and face facts: Most voters are misinformed or lack the initiative to look into things themselves, Obama didn't engineer the bailouts, and bailouts were not failures of policy. (Quite successful, in fact, for the most part. Profitable, too.)

In any objective look at it you can't possibly lay blame at Obama for the bailouts, and even if you hated the bailouts, they did well for what they were designed to do.

The only 'bailout' you could solely pin on Obama, the bailout of GM, is something vehemently opposed by most Republicans, and decried as some terrible government takeover. "Government Motors" as the absurd accusation went. But now, GM has trimmed it's fat, they're restructuring in a way never seen before. They've emerged from bankruptcy, and are profitable once more. We still have an automotive industry in this country, and when all is said and done, we'll more than likely turn a profit.

Guess when the coverage of this bailout was at it's height? When it was in progress. When it was met with skepticism and silly labels. It received all the bad press, and when all is said and done, it won't receive much good press.

But hey, don't listen to me about the evil government "takeover" of the auto industry. Take The Economist's word for it instead, if it pleases you.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I really don't think emphasizing that they're doing what Bush did is a good campaign idea.

That's my whole point. The tea partiers have rewritten history to cast the Dems as the party of bailouts. In fact, the bailouts were not a partisan issue, with large numbers of people on both sides voting both ways. People are acting like Obama passed the bailouts with his Democratic Congress. Honestly, I don't think most people know the difference between the bailout and the stimulus. To be completely honest, I don't think most people know their head from their a$$.

That's the answer, memphis.  Plain and simple.

[opebo]

Racism.

[Badger]

I really don't think emphasizing that they're doing what Bush did is a good campaign idea.

That's my whole point. The tea partiers have rewritten history to cast the Dems as the party of bailouts. In fact, the bailouts were not a partisan issue, with large numbers of people on both sides voting both ways. People are acting like Obama passed the bailouts with his Democratic Congress. Honestly, I don't think most people know the difference between the bailout and the stimulus. To be completely honest, I don't think most people know their head from their a$$.

That's the answer, memphis.  Plain and simple.

Darn close anyways, Grumps. I'd simply add that the labeling the term "bailout" is as misleading as it is inflammatory. It wrongly implies that the money is gone and never to be realistically recovered. "Loans" would be a far more accurate term. The TARP funds to both the banks and the auto makers, IIRC, have mostly been paid back with interest. AIG and Chrysler are the notable exceptions for the moment, though both are still on track to repay their obligations. Otherwise the Federal Government MADE money on these bailouts loans.

By comparison, the estimated cost of the TARP bailout is about half the cost of the S&L failure bailout of the 1980's, and less than a third that crisis's share of GDP. Not an enjoyable or happy outcome, but arguably worth it to, y'know, literally save the US banking system and auto industries from total collapse, and probably the national economy with it.

But if you ask the average voter--across the ideological spectrum--of the result and costs of those "bailouts", most believe that 99% of those "trillions" the government "gave away" to big business are lost and gone forever, never to be paid back.

[Vepres]

Because Obama openly supported it during the campaign, a Democratic congress passed them, and now have defended them consistently.

[anvi]

A lot of the stimulus bill was devoted to long-term
developments in energy too.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013683,00.html?xid=rss-fullnation-yahoo

[Mint]

Because voters are stupid, for the most part, and a certain large media organization is all too eager to let this perception persist. (Or, for that matter, to not talk about the objectively positive benefits of some of those "bailouts" or refuse to call literally every single thing now, a "bailout.")

Yes marokai, blame the voters like always.

Spare me the faux populist outrage and how-dare-yous and face facts: Most voters are misinformed or lack the initiative to look into things themselves, Obama didn't engineer the bailouts, and bailouts were not failures of policy. (Quite successful, in fact, for the most part. Profitable, too.)

I'm one of the most critical posters on this board about Americans, and not just on their lack of involvement. I could bump that old thread you posted on what frustrates us about our country if you want particularly scathing examples.

However there is a big difference between acknowledging this country's many flaws (among them our refusal to admit them or our obvious decline) and constantly deflecting blame towards Americans nearly every time the politicians you support dip in the polls because of issues like the economy. After awhile it gets old.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did you even bother reading my earlier post? Both parties are largely to blame for the bail outs being passed. Republicans are marginally better in terms of the percentage that voted on the final bill but it says a lot that Bush, McCain, Romney, Palin, Thune, etc. all endorsed them.  However, considering the people Obama appointed to his administration and that he DID vote for them, what do you expect?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I have said before, I consider the bail outs to be catastrophic. You want to examine facts? Since 2009, the big banks have become even bigger. Not only are they bigger, but small business lending is virtually non-existent and they've jacked up their rates for things like over-withdrawal fees and interest on credit cards. There was no serious restructuring of them (let alone break up of them), no consolidation or writing off of the astronomical debts they incurred, no real regulation of the derivatives bubble which almost everyone agrees has metastasized over the last 30 years and now dwarfs the rest of the global economy. From where I'm standing, the bail outs are a textbook case of the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer. That old talking point is absolutely correct IMO. As a result, when the next crash happens (and I honestly believe that it will occur by 2011 at latest, if it doesn't happen by this year), it will be even worse in large part because of our policies towards the financial sector.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that is entirely different for the reasons I just outlined. GM for all its faults at least produced an actual, physical product with some value, was forced to make some concessions under bankrutpcy, and had debts that it could conceivably pay off. None of that holds true for the banks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You really don't know me very well if you think I take the Economist (especially their editorial board) without a truckload of salt.

[Beet]

Mint, without the bailouts the entire banking system would have vanished, and along with it huge chunks of the economy. Sure, you can criticize that there hasn't been more regulation, that credit card fees have gone up (although I don't think that's all bad), and that bad debt write-off is not complete (although it's not true that there has been no write-off). But isn't saving the banking system the big picture? Sure, we all hate the banks and recognize the catastrophe their gambling caused, but no one can or has made a serious argument that a modern economy can function without a banking system.

[Mint]

The way I see it the only possible way to save the economy in the long run is (or was) complete bankruptcy reorganization of the financial system. Nationalization (or receivership if you want to get technical) would have been fine with me if there were serious limitations imposed and liquidation of all these worthless assets (and yes, 'redistribution of wealth' in a lot of circumstances - we might as well convert a lot of these unoccupied and unfinished properties into low income housing or something for example).

[Beet]

Well, nationalization would have been pointless (except for pure socialists) unless taxpayer money was injected in, because as soon as the banks liquidated, it would have been a moot point who owned the non-existing entity.

Bottom line, any plan that injected taxpayer money into the financial system was a bailout, and most advocates of nationalization (ask the Irish how popular the government's nationalization of Anglo Irish is over there) would probably have cost the taxpayer more than the Geithner plan. And any plan that did not inject taxpayer money into the financial system would have meant letting the financial system fail, and thus sending the economy into such a deep tailspin that tax revenues would have been decimated. In which case the deficit would be even worse than it is today. The Geithner plan was actually rather ingenious as it convinced the private sector to (partly) bail itself out by forcing the banks to raise capital on their own.

Yet most people just think 'bailout' and understand the inherent unfairness of it all -- they are right -- yet fail to appreciate the far more horrendous alternative that was ultimately why this policy was enacted.