AIG Exit Plan Proves Obama’s No Socialist

October 1st, 2010 at 1:00 pm | 69 Comments |

| Print

Winston Churchill once entered a men’s room where his Labour Party rival Clement Attlee was standing at a urinal. As Churchill moved to the far end of the room, Attlee asked: “Feeling standoffish today, are we, Winston?”

Churchill’s reply went down in history: “That’s right. Every time you see something big, you want to nationalize it.”

Attlee’s mid-20th-century Labourites advocated (and implemented) the nationalization of industries including railroads, coal, electricity, gas and steel. That was what made them socialists. It was also why Churchill’s riposte was funny.

But it’s not a joke that would make sense if applied to U.S. politics today. The Obama administration just announced its plans to sell off the government’s majority stake in the bailed-out insurance company AIG.  The government also has been unwinding its positions in Citigroup and other banks, and is preparing to sell off its shares in GM as well.

The AIG rescue and the other TARP bailouts, initiated by the Bush administration with support from then-candidate Obama, were never popular in general and are anathema among Tea Party voters. But these bailouts seem to have worked out pretty well. The cost to taxpayers looks likely to be modest (it’s possible the Treasury will profit on AIG overall). A reasonable concern — that the government had no clear exit strategy from its crisis-driven role ­— has turned out to not be a lasting problem.

We’ll also never know what would have happened if TARP had not been implemented. AIG In particular had an enormous web of entanglements with other financial institutions through its ill-considered transactions in credit default swaps and other instruments. Would there have been a domino effect of one financial institution after another collapsing if AIG had failed? It seems plausible, and if so we might have ended up with a real government nationalization of the financial sector.

Republicans should draw a clear distinction between temporary crisis measures, such as TARP, and long-term expansions of government’s role and liabilities, such as Obamacare. Much as Obama once said he’s not opposed to all wars, just dumb ones, Republicans should focus their opposition to government programs on those that are harmful or unaffordable. And rhetoric about Obama’s “socialism” should go down the drain.

Recent Posts by Kenneth Silber



69 Comments so far ↓

  • pnumi2

    Non con

    Why can’t you remember that for the last 6 years of his term Clinton’s legislation was proposed by a Republican Senate and House? The Glass Steagall Act was repealed in 1999. Your Republican cronies sent the bill to Bill and he signed it.

    The corruptocracy began under Clinton? Read the history of this country since the invention of the railroad.

  • pnumi2

    host

    When you travelled through out Europe in the 60′s, quite a few merchants and people you came in contact with wanted to get paid in dollars or buy them from you. I haven’t been over there lately but I’ll bet those days long gone.

    I don’t know how long the Chinese have known that they are Inscrutable. But they know it. They play it up. And they’re getting a lot of milage out of it.

  • TerryF98

    “As TARP was originally proposed,
    the Treasury would buy up the toxic assets on these companies’ balance sheets. (That’s what “TARP” stands for–Troubled Asset Relief)”

    Until they realized there were 40 Trillion of them. Then they said “We need a bigger TARP” and gave up.

  • armstp

    CO,

    Actually you are wrong? Your link describes the Paulson’s plan of October 14, 2008 as making direct equity/preferred investments into the financial institutions. It does not describe the U.S. government buying up securities/derivatives/toxic assets, as CD suggested that Paulson wanted to do and he thought we should have done, although CD is partially right because the original purpose of TARP was to potentially buy securities, but that was dropped pretty fast by Treasury and Paulson.

    “Click through to the chart of the Fed’s balance sheet I posed above. You’ll find a little over a trillion of it there.”

    So explain to me how expanding the Feds balance sheet resulted in a transfer of hundreds of billions of wealth from the Treasury to the private sector? Where exactly is the transfer? Where is the free money that the govt has given away exactly? The Fed uses its balance sheet all the time to stabilize financial markets. That is not a transfer of wealth. It is no different then anyone else buying a portfolio of assets or securities. You could easily say that it goes the other way and that the Fed has made some good investments and there is a net transfer of wealth from the private sector to the government. The fed has had no losses on these largely mortgage backed securities purchases. In fact, the Fed has reported a profit on these mortgage back securities purchases.

    “Fed’s reaction to crisis helps deliver record $46.1-billion profit”

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/12/business/la-fi-fed13-2010jan13

    The fact that you even make this statement: “If you want to go conspiracy theory then some of it is probably hiding in dark pools and certain mysterious hedge funds operated out of Reston, VA and perhaps even London.” suggest that you have no idea what you are talking about. Take off the tinfoil hat.

    Your statement: “gotten filthy rich by a** raping the U.S. Treasury with the active cooperation of Ben, Timmy, Obama, and Congress, ” is complete BS. No, the Treasury did not get a** raped. Far from it. They are actually making money on their actions and their actions have massively stabilized the U.S. economy and the financial system. Bernake and Geithner have done a hell of a good job. They have taken the actions required at very little cost to the tax payer, and in fact, the taxpayer may end up making money.

    It is funny CD says that we should have went with the Paulson plan (which there actually was not one) to buy “securities” and then he contradicts himself by critizing the Feds open market purchases of those very same or similar securities by suggesting some fictious transfer of wealth.

    Your critize of TARP is also misguided. It work and we are getting all of your money back. Period. Where is the problem with that?

    Your statment:

    “In the first year in office the Obama administration put us on the hook for $5-$6 trillion in liabilities. ”

    is also BS.

    Sorry, I am not seeing this $5-6 trillion. Where is this “on the hook” for $5 to 6 trillion? A complete made up talking point with absolutely zero proof. A lie.

    All you conservatives drove this economy into the ground and continue to be wrong about the solutions. Give it up! Go away and let some adults drive the bus.

  • CD-Host

    It is funny CD says that we should have went with the Paulson plan (which there actually was not one) to buy “securities” and then he contradicts himself by critizing the Feds open market purchases of those very same or similar securities by suggesting some fictious transfer of wealth.

    CD said not engaging in the asset purchases but instead lending money to banks at 9% against troubled assets was a transfer of wealth. The government took on risk well beyond the 9% they were being compensated for. There is no contradiction.

    I haven’t criticized the Fed’s open market operations in this sequence of posts of all. I’ve been critical of treasury. The problems with the Fed are different they don’t have the same role with regard to the public interest the Treasury is supposed to have. AFAIK the Fed did nothing illegal or unusual during the bailouts. The Fed consistently with their charter which was written by congress.

    Whether we should have this sort of agency is a different question. And I agree with the Tea Party fully that the American people deserve the right to fully consider this issue and not have it forced upon them.

    So yet again you are lying about my position making stuff up out of whole cloth.

  • CD-Host

    pnumi2 –

    I’ve been there recently. There wouldn’t be any point after the Nixon shock. After Nixon we had fully convertible currencies on both sides. As for the Chinese agreed.

  • jg bennet

    you HEARD IT FIRST on the frumforum

    August 10th, 2010 at 10:08 am ALEX KNEPPER

    Is Barack Obama a socialist? Astonishingly, the media, with rare exception, have all but ignored the ideas of people who ought to know: self-declared socialists. Socialist Party USA co-chairman Billy Wharton agreed to answer a few questions for me, and tells FrumForum what American socialism would look like, why he thinks that Obama is a crony for business interests, and why true socialists find virtually nothing to celebrate in his presidency.

    FF: Thank you so much for your time. I’m a little astonished that so few people are asking self-avowed socialists about this “controversy.” I guess a good place to start, then, would be right at the beginning: just what is socialism?

    BW: Democratic socialism is a political philosophy based on two central notions. The first is that all people in society have the right to the basic necessities of life, including housing, a job, health care and a clean environment. We see these things as unalienable human rights. Second, and connected, we believe that the principles of democracy need to be applied to the economy … this means things like worker self-management of businesses, consumer cooperative organizing and participatory budgeting.

    FF: Yes-or-no question: is the president a socialist?

    BW: No.

    FF: Why do so many people think he is?

    BW: One important reason is that a seriously disorganized Republican Party is attempting to recover from a string of electoral defeats by allowing the far-right to employ a tried and true practice in American politics – red-baiting. The key element of this tactic is that it provides a simple explanation for rather complex social and economic problems. A section of people living in the disarray of the economic crisis that started in 2008 have chosen to adopt this simple explanation.

    The danger for the Republican Party is that the Tea Party, which is a seriously top-down movement, will begin to exercise control over the Party. Second danger, is that they are re-introducing the term socialist to American politics. The far-right is trying to control this definition, but this is difficult to do. Our task as socialists is to demonstrate not only that Obama is not a socialist, but that socialist ideals offer better answers to the problems that everyday people face under capitalism.

    FF: A lot of conservatives would say that your description of what socialism fundamentally is — “all people in society have the right to the basic necessities of life – including housing, a job, healthcare and a clean environment” — sounds a lot like a typical Obama speech. In what areas is the president falling short of socialist goals?

    BW: I would encourage these folks to take a serious look at the policies Obama has enacted over the past two years. The election campaign is over, so there is no more ambiguity about what Obama might or might not do. On healthcare, Obama and the Democrats in the Congress allowed the health insurance companies to write the healthcare reform bill. This means that instead of the single-payer national program that socialists advocated, Obama supported a bill that will allow private companies to loot taxpayer money while selling junk healthcare plans to the uninsured.

    On the bank bailout, more of the same. Instead of the national jobs program that we called for, Obama poured billions into the banks. Financial reform? Same deal. Obama and the Democrats allowed the Republicans to negotiate out the Volcker Rule that would have placed more serious regulation on the financial sector. Finally, Obama failed miserably during the BP oil explosion. Instead of a nationalization order, which socialists supported, BP received polite invitations to lunch at the White House. Where is the socialism in all of this?…

    FF: Is there anything Obama has done at all that’s given true socialists cause to celebrate? Or has he shown himself to be a down-the-line crony for business interests?

    BW: Throughout his administration President Obama has demonstrated a commitment to defend the interests of corporations and the richest 5% of society. And now, his Deficit Commission appears to be targeting public programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Socialists are faced with the task of building movements to defend these programs and developing initiatives that move towards greater economic democracy. Obama’s not an ally in the struggle, if anything his administration has been a hindrance.

    FF: Let me play devil’s advocate here. What of Obama’s history? Saul Alinsky, the original “community organizer,” has become something of a household name as of late. Now, Alinsky was a proud leftist, and the movement he launched had openly leftist — and, in many instances, socialist — goals. What do you say to those who would contend that, given his background as a community organizer, Obama must secretly sympathize with socialist goals, even if he disagrees with folks like you on tactics? (For instance: your call for healthcare nationalization had literally no chance of passing Congress.)

    BW: There was community organizing well before Alinsky, however, he’s been quite influential in post WWII organizing efforts. I wouldn’t call Alinsky a proud leftist. In fact, he was explicitly anti-ideological and advocated avoiding electoral politics. Socialism is a political ideology and the Socialist Party USA seeks to create social change, in part, through electoral campaigns. So, socialists don’t draw much inspiration from Alinsky.

    Neither, it seems, does Obama. When given the opportunity to defend ACORN, Obama refused to come clean about his connections to the group. Thereby allowing the right wing to dismantle the organization. This was the first sign that Obama intended to distance himself from any grassroots political efforts. And we can see the same process underway among immigrant rights groups and the marriage equality movement. This is why I say I’m not even sure that Obama is a liberal and the idea that he’s a socialist is simply absurd.

    FF: Are there any politicians in the United States that SPUSA feels comfortable with right now?

    BW: We are committed to presenting our own candidates in local, state and Federal elections throughout the country. On occasion we also engage in electoral coalitions with other third parties. We see no possibilities for progressive change inside either the Democrats or Republicans. The Republicans have been the party of social and economic conservatism and eventually neoconservatism since post World War II. The Democrats have acted as their partners by pursuing neoliberal policies and managing wars of aggression from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. Independents such as Bernie Sanders and progressives like Dennis Kucinich tend to fall into line with the prevailing political opinions in the Democratic Party. This was particularly true during the recent healthcare and financial reform debates. If Americans want real political change it will have to happen outside of the two party system.

    FF: Finally, where is SPUSA directing its resources right now? What issues are most burning to Socialists at this moment?

    BW: We’re aiming to build local organizations in every state in the country. Since the capitalist crisis began in 2008 we have established new locals in Memphis, Oklahoma City and Wichita. This is the first time since the McCarthy period that socialists are organizing in these locations. We intend to continue and extend this process.

    The issues that are critical to us include reversing the SB 1070 anti-immigrant law in Arizona, stopping the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and advancing our ideas about economic democracy. Overall, we hope to create a society based on socialist values of solidarity, compassion and justice.

    FF: Anything else you’d like to add?

    BW: I thank you for this opportunity to present our ideas about democratic socialism. I hope that other people will give us a fair hearing. I think that they will find that socialism for the 21st century offers the best hope for the global advance of human development. I encourage people to visit our website and examine the ideas that we support. We also have a weekly WebZine.

  • CO Independent

    >> Sorry, I am not seeing this $5-6 trillion. Where is this “on the hook” for $5 to 6 trillion? A complete made up talking point with absolutely zero proof. A lie.

    Do the math, you effin’ idiot. $1T of MBS on the Fed’s balance sheet plus $4-$5T on the two FMs balance sheets. 1+4=5. 1+5=6. Get it? Do you have to be spoon-fed every friggin’ piece of data and have the math done for you?

    In 2009 the Congress lifted the $4XX billion liability limit for the two FMs, so taxpayers are on the hook for this entire liability. The Fed just printed the money to buy their MBS. That comes out of our hides too, typically by way of devaluation.

  • armstp

    CO,

    You are not listening, I am not debating the numbers, although we can debate those, I am just debating the “on-the-hook” statement. The benefits of these actions have been very significant at stabilizing the banks, the financial system and the economy and so far there has been absolutely no downside, despite some predicitions, which have been wrong, by doom and gloomers. You choose to emphasis the negative, but so far there is no negative. No “on-the-hook” and no a** raping. In fact, the government looks like they will return a profit whether it is from GM, AIG or even these treasury market purchases. There has also been no transfer of wealth from the government to the private sector. Absolutely zero.

    By the way the assets purchased are not liabilities. They have value and value that has been actually increasing. Of course they borrowed at record low rates to make those purchases, but they should be able to reverse these transactions through swaps and unwinding position over a measured period of time. In addition, their mortgage position are naturally unwinding with maturitiees.

    Not as clear as you and CD seem to suggest. Go read the various opinions. Not clear at all about devaluation either.

    Both of your through your ideological blame the government for everything lens are way to quick to discredit government action on the economy. So far it has pretty nearly been perfect. The U.S. government and other governments around the world have done a great job at stablizing the financial system and the economy. They have done it so far at very little cost to tax payers, which is particularly admirable given the largely uncharted waters and plenty of land mines. Let give Obama, Geithner and Bernake a lot of credit for this. They have done a very good job.

    I would ask you this. If the taxpayer is really on the hook for $5-6 trillion ,as you say, do you not think investors and financial markets would not be more nervous and there would be a bigger risk premium in treasury yields, which are near zero, with no risk premium? This also reflect an almost zero worry by the financial markets of significant inflation any time soon. If you really have conviction of this is all bad, then why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and short treasuries.

    “the Fed holds over a trillion dollars in federal-agency mortgage paper as an asset. It has over a trillion dollars in liabilities payable to banks for their excess reserve deposits. The Fed is earning an interest rate of about 4% on the assets and paying an interest rate of 0.25% on the reserve deposits. The Fed remits the “profit” to the US Treasury. ” Sounds like a nice way to make a profit and to also save the economy at the same time.

  • armstp

    CO,

    By the way if you have any complaints blame your buddy Bush and Republicans for getting us into this mess and requiring this kind of action in the first place.

  • CD-Host

    armstp –

    I have yet to see myself or CO express any support for Bush economic politics. The Tea Party and the Republican party do not share an economic program. Feel free to attack Coolidge or Grover Cleveland if you want to go after Tea party predecessors.

  • CO Independent

    @Armstp:

    You are living in an alternate reality. Sentence by sentence, you are incorrect on every fact and therefore incorrect in your conclusion. I am not going to spend the time to rebut the entire post, but it starts with your very first sentence:

    >> You are not listening, I am not debating the numbers, although we can debate those, I am just debating the “on-the-hook” statement.
    Have you been living in a cave? Here is a link to one of about a thousand articles returned by a simple Yahoo search describing how the Obama Administration and Congress have dropped the $400B limit on backstopping FMs debt. Taxpayers are now on the hook for the entire amount. That right-wing-rag the NYT puts the federal governments commitments assumed at $12T. But hey, if you say we’re not on the hook for them, then we must not be. I guess you’re right and every other financial news reporting agency in the world is wrong.
    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9416154
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/04/business/20090205-bailout-totals-graphic.html

    >> The benefits of these actions have been very significant at stabilizing the banks, the financial system and the economy . . .
    Of course “these actions” have stabilized the banks. “These actions” are is the transfer of risk (and losses) off the banks’ balance sheet and onto the government’s balance sheet–from the private sector to the public sector. In and of itself, the transfer of risk without the accompanying reward is a huge wealth transfer.

    >> and so far there has been absolutely no downside, despite some predicitions, which have been wrong, by doom and gloomers.
    The government pumped almost $200B into the two FMs in 2009. I haven’t bothered to look at what the number is for 2010. I suppose that counts as no downside in your world. You can Google this one yourself.

    >> No “on-the-hook” and no a** raping.
    See above

    You might want to look into who is buying all these treasuries. China’s holdings are steady to falling. The Fed just passed Japan as the second largest holder of US treasuries. Where does the Fed get the money to buy all those treasuries? (That’s a rhetorical question.) And QE2 starts in November–another trillion of printed money.
    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/09/14/goldman-fed-may-announce-new-asset-buys-in-november/

    At the end of the day the Obama administration’s plan to deal with the collapse of the credit bubble and the housing sector which it inflated is to shift the default risk from the private sector to the public sector, to pump easy government-backed credit into the system in an attempt to keep the housing market from deflating, and to follow courses of action (extend and pretend, dumping the really bad losses into the Fed, which won’t be audited, etc.) that prevent losses from entering the system. This will “work” as long as housing prices stay inflated and defaults remain low (or unrecognized), provided you define “work” as preventing the collapse of the major international banks.

    Meanwhile, out here in the real world, it kills the real economy by sucking capital out of the system and smaller banks, who did not receive such government largess, are dropping like flies.

    >> By the way if you have any complaints blame your buddy Bush and Republicans for getting us into this mess and requiring this kind of action in the first place.
    Emphatically, no. You seem not to have absorbed anything. This transfer of risk occurred entirely under the Obama administration. Hence my original comment about the Nixonian element of our times. In the same way that only a perceived anti-communist like Nixon could go to China, only a perceived leftist like Obama could engineer this massive wealth transfer up the income ladder.

    Administrations never burst bubbles. Bush (and the Dems) let the credit bubble form in the very same way that Clinton let the tech bubble form. When the tech bubble burst and the Nasdaq lost 70% of its value Bush, to his credit, did not step in and try to support the market. Private investors took their losses and the world moved on, which is precisely what should have happened in the housing market.

    Like I said, in a sick way it has to be fun to be a bankster right now. Made millions or billions in private wealth. Transferred the attendant risk to the public. Morons like you are now emptying my PR chamber pot for me. It would be funny except that your stupidity ultimately costs me money.

  • pnumi2

    CO

    Clinton did not let the tech bubble form. Greenspan did. If, instead of saying “irrational exuberance,” he had said “initial margin is now 80%,” that would have been the end of it.

    Then, of course, I wouldn’t have made all that money 3 years later selling out at NASDAQ 5000.

    If there ever was a bell at the top, NASDAQ 5000 was it.

  • CO Independent

    >> Clinton did not let the tech bubble form. Greenspan did. If, instead of saying “irrational exuberance,” he had said “initial margin is now 80%,” that would have been the end of it.

    This is a minor point, but Clinton could have pricked the tech bubble in the same way that GWB could have pricked the housing bubble. The SEC has been dysfunctional for almost 20 years.

    I’ll trust you have sufficient expertise to understand that statement implicitly. I’m not going to walk you through every single detail like Armstp requires.

  • pnumi2

    CO

    I think you’re accusing Clinton of not doing something no modern President ever did. Maybe you ‘ll remind me of other Presidents who have pricked stock market bubbles without using or listening to the Fed?

    I remember in the 70′s the Fed used to raise and lower interest rate and/or margin requirements. They’d announce their changes on Friday after the close and, if they raised rates, you’d spend your week end barking at the kids and the dog, because you knew what Monday’s opening was going to do to your positions.

  • pnumi2

    CO

    With all due respect for your superior grasp of these things, you say “When the tech bubble burst and the Nasdaq lost 70% of its value Bush, to his credit, did not step in and try to support the market.” That was very wise of Bush for he wasn’t to be inaugurated until January, 2001 and the Nasdaq began it’s journey into the depths on March 9, 2000.

    This I remember as I had been sitting at my computer from 6:30 in the morning till 1:00 pm. for the entire month of February after figuring out what the Boys were up to.

    There was going to be profit taking at 5000. At night I prayed that my dial up wouldn’t fail me and it didn’t.

    Thank you for conceding to me my “minor point.”

  • CO Independent

    @pnumi2

    One of the frustrating things about this blog is the excruciating detail required in posting. I’m aware of the timeline of the tech bubble meltdown.

    The point was that both Bush and Obama inherited the economic problems associated with the aftermath of a burst bubble. To his credit, Bush did not marshal the resources of the Federal government to try to reflate the tech bubble. He let the economic losses fall on the parties who assumed the risk. Ergo, the US did not follow a process of throwing hundreds of billions in good money after bad. And the economy recovered fairly quickly.

    By contrast, the policy of the Obama administration has been to pump as much credit as possible in an effort to support asset prices and to transfer the risk of loss from the private sector to the public treasury. Huge wealth transfer up the income ladder. And the great sucking sound you hear now is the sound of all available capital being pulled into this vortex.

    I sometimes wonder if Obama, in his private moments, chuckles at how badly he is screwing the idiots who voted for him. I never thought I would see the day when a “progressive” Democrat President would adopt policies that favor the interests of the wealthy at the expense ordinary working Americans, but here we are.

  • pnumi2

    CO

    At their best details and facts are messy and usually ignored by the other side; at their worst they are little quislings who jump onto the page with a meaning 180 degrees from what you’d remembered.

    If Bush had attempted to reflate the burst tech bubble it would have been a terrible waste of time and money, as 911 occurred 8 months after he took the oath of office and the Dow took an even worse nose dive. The economy did recover fairly quickly as war preparation economies do.

    I’m sorry you don’t make any allowances for the terra incognita the Obama administration found itself in. All they had was a little pirate map drawn by Paulson and Bernanke that Kondratiev himself would have gotten lost with. Indeed, there was a huge transfer of the risk of loss from the private to the public sector. That risk of loss is entered into the National Ledger in the column called National Debt and as such is fungible than all the previous entries since 1981.

    Much has been said about leaving our children such a huge burden. I’m sure they’d prefer that burden to a slum from “sea to shining sea.”

    Are you really surprised that the financial sector has replaced journalism as the Fourth Estate? That a pack of unindicted Bernie Madoffs tell two out of the three branches of government how high to jump. The third branch toes the line with its Citizens United decision.

  • armstp

    CO,

    Again you are debating the numbers. I am not debating the numbers. I am debating the “on-the-hook” comment. What does it mean to be “on-the-hook”? That is not so clear. Where is the analysis that says we are “on-the-hook”?

    If the treasury buys assets (in this case mortgage back securities or treasuries or money market instruments, etc.) why is it on-the-hook for anything? In fact, it is making a profit on these purchases and stabilized the financial system. Goverments do this all over the world. This is not as you say “on-the-hook”. Please explain to me why this is “on-the-hook” and considered a bad thing?

    Why is this a transfer of wealth as you say? explain? How do you know there have been a transfer of losses? It depends on at what level the assets were purchases. All we know is that as of today the Treasury has not lost a dime and the banks have not gained a dime. In fact, the last report from treasury said that treasury made almost $40 billion on its transactions, not including the benefits of stablizing the system.

    Actually on the two FMs you are incorrect. The government pledged $200 billon and up to this point has actually only put in $60 billion. (see your own NYT reference). Freddie and Fannie have yet to play out. We will see if the government really does lose money here and how much, but I would say out of trillions of support the government has given the economy, this is likely to turn-out to be peanuts, particularly if the housing market is brought better under control and stabilized. In addition, the government has already made $40 billion on other transactions, so overall net-net, the government may walk away from this historic rescue with not costing taxpayers a dime.

    So far government actions have worked. I commend government on taking these actions to stabilize the economy and the financial system.

    Your statement “it kills the real economy” is wrong. Actually, the economy has been revived. We are growing again and there is private sector job growth. Average economic forecast is 2.5% to 3.0% GDP growth through the back half of 2010 and similiar for 2011. That is a pretty impressive turnaround in such a short period of time after the worst downturn since the great depression. Not sure where exactly the “real” economy is being killed, as you say.

    You seem more interested in blaming government for things that have not actually happened or “may” happpen. Complete BS.

    And where exactly are any of these actions costing you money. Most of the money is coming back to the government and in many cases at a profit.

    Again I will state that many of these actions, which actually began under the Bush adminstration, would have not have been necessary if the Bush adminstration had kept a better eye on the inflating credit bubble that occured, and in some cases they outright encouraged, under their watch.