Skip to main content

View Diary: Bill Halter comes out swinging - SLAMS (!!) Lincoln for bailout vote (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wow. (0+ / 0-)

    That is utterly pathetic. You are presented with a logical argument, and you cannot name a single flaw in it? You can't even name a single point of contention? And yet you dismiss it as faith? No authority? Again, look at anything Krugman's written about TARP. But you've already dismissed him as being "wrong all the time", despite his accuratley predicting the phenomenon you claimed so few economists had predicted...

    You have offered absolutely no rebuttal of my claim. None. How is it someone with absolutely no logic or evidence backing them up can sit there claiming others are faith-based?

    •  Whoops! (0+ / 0-)

      I thought you didn't like the personal attacks. Oh, yeah, you only mind them when they're directed at you.

      If you review my posting history in this diary you'll find abundant, documented, support for my position. You've provided nothing but your belief that TARP was super-special-life-saving. If you chose not to read the information I've posted, well, then, you can accuse me of anything. I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it.

      If you'd like to document your reasoning, it would help. Otherwise, you can just continue to scream how much you disagree, but it means nothing.

      •  Personal attacks? (0+ / 0-)

        Because I called it pathetic that you refuse to criticize the argument you're dismissing? How is that a personal attack? It's an attack on your total failure to debate.

        I have read your links. They do not address the point at all. They are a laundry list of bad things about the bill--none of which in any way question its effectiveness in preventing a deflationary depression. It's that simple.

        If you are so incapable of responding to an argument without someone making an appeal to authority, then here: http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/...

        "Even so," the panel concluded, "there is broad consensus that the TARP was an important part of a broader government strategy that stabilized the U.S. financial system by renewing the flow of credit and averting a more acute crisis."

        It added, "Although the government’s response to the crisis was at first haphazard and uncertain, it eventually proved decisive enough to stop the panic and restore market confidence."

        And if you look at your own evidence from the GAO, you'll see that their criticisms of TARP stem from the fact that it didn't increase loans as much as it could have--*not* that it failed to prevent a wide, systemic shock. Because it did help to prevent a wide, systemic shock.

        Again, there is a very simple argument here: Banks were going under. TARP prevented that. Preventing a bank crisis prevented a much more severe economic downturn. You have yet to name a single part of that argument that's wrong.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site