Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Citigroup Inc. Message Board

  • rlfox90@att.net rlfox90 Oct 5, 2011 10:46 PM Flag

    What would John McCain have done?

    Since no one wants to talk about Citi I figure what the hell. So everyone talks how bad Obama is but no one discusses what McCain would be doing right now as president. So, what would McCain have done?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You can be sure he wouldn't have ignored the economy and jobs to spend his first year socializing the healthcare system. He wouldn't have introduced all of the economic uncertainty discouraging businesses to hire. And without a doubt, rather than waste several trillion on failed alternative energy scams, he would have encouraged developing economically viable domestic sources of energy like natural gas, nuclear and oil.

      That's just the beginning, the outcomes from that point are infinite.

      We do know that when Reagan was in the same situation after Carter, the US economy grew at 5 to 10%. In total, it grew about 70% over Reagan's two terms. Bush even grew it 40%.

      Under Bonobo, after several years of $1.5 trillion deficits and another $5 trillion added to the debt, the GDP still hasn't regained the level of 2008.

      • 2 Replies to stocktor_evil
      • dareacre@sbcglobal.net dareacre Oct 6, 2011 7:32 PM Flag

        and i don't think mccain would be spending so much time on beer summits, shooting hoops, or golfing.

      • Thank GWB & the New Agency Of Homeland Security for the Trillion dollar Deficits..It cost a whole lot of money to run 2 Covert Wars and protect this Nation of ours at ANY cost.
        The reaction in Congress, which becomes so important in our story, is they really wrote a blank check. … The money flowed out. And there weren’t very many constraints on it at all. There definitely wasn’t any sort of oversight of what was going on with the money, because, again, people were worried. …

        And so George Bush, for example, gave the CIA a billion dollars right off the bat, because the CIA was in the best position, not the military, to go after bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan. And he gave them a billion dollars, and he also ordered the military to do whatever it took to support the CIA. …

        They did the same thing with the NSA. Lots of money poured into the National Security Agency, which was the eavesdropper around the world. And they couldn’t grow fast enough. Not only were they asked to eavesdrop in many different places that they weren’t used to doing — not just capitals and not just leaders of countries, which is really what they were doing, mostly, prior to 9/11. They would want to know what a leader was saying or what an opposition group was saying. And they would report those conversations back.
        So they actually made it much easier to hire outsiders, to hire contractors to work temporarily, than they did to hire federal workers. And that also remains a characteristic of what happens over the next 10 years, where any agency that wanted to grow quickly would go to the private sector, to corporations that saw an opportunity here to make a lot of money, to get into an area that no one was into yet, or very few players were into......
        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/topsecretamerica/dana-priest-top-secret-america-is-here-to-stay/


        10 years since 911 and Trillion dollar deficits are because we have a SAFE NATION & no terrorism over here so get over it..and we got Bin Laden and his lieutenants.

        McCain would have spent the Same amount of money if Not MORE to keep the USA safe..

    • "having a different president could have set off a whole other set of unknowable ripple effects in international relations or other types of policies that affect the economy (butterfly effect and all that).




      The dirty little secret that many people don’t realize is that monetary policy, not fiscal policy, has been much more aggressive in addressing the current crisis."


      NYtimes

      • 3 Replies to fastmoneyof_2011
      • Most people don’t realize how much more active monetary policy has been for two reasons:

        The Fed doesn’t have to seek congressional approval to kickstart most of the programs it’s enacted since the start of the crisis, so there’s no long, drawn-out, media-smothered lead-up to the expansion of the Fed balance sheet. The Fed just does what it does, with little fanfare and few talking-head blowhards debating it on T.V.
        Monetary policy is complicated, and many of the Fed’s programs are very difficult to understand. It’s much easier to understand (and frankly, for journalists to write about) a program to spend money to build a new bridge than a program called the “As set-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility.”
        Monetary policy is by and large set by the Fed, which is set up to be an independent organization. Many economists I’ve spoken with in recent weeks have referred to Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chariman, as an “unsung hero” of the recession, and credited the Fed with doing most of the heavy-lifting in stabilizing the economy.

 
C
55.08-0.29(-0.52%)Jul 6 4:01 PMEDT