(11-01-2016 05:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 05:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 05:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  IMO Obama's numbers on the economy are far more positive because he just happened conveniently to take office almost at the exact bottom of a major recession than because of anything he did or did not do. Had he taken office 6 months earlier, he would have been blamed for the great recession and probably been unelectable in 2016. Had he taken office 6 months later, the recovery would already have been underway and he would have more been blamed for the sluggishness of the recovery than given credit that the recovery occurred.

I happen to agree with this for the most part. I think he did do some things that positively effected the recovery, like bailing out the auto industry. Those companies have done very well since then and have, for the most part, repaid a lot of the debts they incurred from that.

I think the auto companies would have done pretty much the same thing without the "bailout." It would have occurred through a different process, one more respectful of the rule of law, but the results would have been pretty much the same. They would have gone through 11s, not 7s, and they would never have ceased to operate.

But that would not have achieved the REAL purpose of the "bailout", which (like most policies) was to dispense economic favors to favored constituencies.