His promise was to withdraw 2 divisions/month for 16 months, until all US soldiers were out. I like his current policy better, and it gives wiggle room for more changes if needed - in either direction. The people who wanted the the U. S. 100% OUT and thought he meant that when he said it are the ones disappointed. I didn't think he meant it but worried that he might.

As for the troops in S. Korea, I doubt we would still have a truce there if we didn't have the troops there. So maybe that's not a bad thing.

Yeah, I guess you could say it was a voluntary choice by GM. Just like I "voluntarily" appeared for my draft physical(the alternative was prison) and just like last year I "voluntarily" sold some of my land to the government for 70% of its value (the alternative was to have it forcibly taken under eminent domain and be "awarded" an arbitrary and probably lesser sum). Oh, yez, the choices we make "freely"!!

As for the bank, i don't think he wants to or has to wait until it fails. I think he wants to be able to declare it in danger of failing and therefore takes it over as a preventative measure. I guess we can wait and see, but if we don't like what we see then it will be too late. The toothpaste will be out of the tube.

(04-07-2009 04:43 PM)texd Wrote:  My understanding is that he wants the authority for the feds to step in and close down a failed non-bank financial entity, bailing out the clients (similar to what happens now when an FDIC bank fails).

I don't recall what Obama's exact promise was on Iraq with respect to troops other than ending the war. I for one never expected we'd take every boot off the ground. We've still got 30,000 troops in South Korea more than a half century after the truce there.

As far as GM, they did make that choice. It was an economic answer to this question: What do we need more, several billion more dollars or our current CEO?

(04-07-2009 03:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-07-2009 02:57 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  jeezis, people, it's been 11 weeks and everybody wants to arm for the apocalypse. I'm seeing the leader I expected. I'm not disillusioned, not surprised, not "embarrassed." Just not interested in this thread. I get it: y'all think his economic policies are crap. I don't, and I don't think anyone can yet say they have failed.

And if an American company doesn't want the government making decisions about its leadership, it can look elsewhere for a bailout.

I am sure i will be corrected if wrong, but my understanding is that Geithner wants the authority to enforce his policies on banks that have taken no money. I also hear that some banks that did not want the money was forced to take it, and that some banks have tried to return the money and not been allowed. I thought getting the taxpayer's money back was a priority.