Author of asset relief letter unhappy but offers no fixes
Editor,
I read with dismay Matthew Waters’ letter to the editor published in the Nov. 20 issue of the Daily Lobo. The letter concerned Senator Tom Udall’s support for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The letter is well-written, but the facts are wrong.
Possibly related:
- Complex passwords a necessary annoyance · Feb 9
- Life-altering consequences of Oscar wins · Feb 4
- Drug companies: looking for wealth not health · Feb 2
- Highfalutin iPads incite violence · Feb 1
- Finding happiness in an unsustainable reality · Jan 29
Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but everyone is not entitled to his or her own facts. The TARP bailout was passed on Oct. 3, 2008 during President Bush’s term, not “last spring.” Mr. Waters should recall that the imminent collapse of the international bank credit system led one presidential candidate to postpone his presidential campaign, and that the Republican party was divided between following the lead of President Bush or doing nothing. Britain announced a bank recapitalization program soon after. On Oct. 13, every major European country joined it. On Oct. 14, the United States followed suit by using TARP funds to inject capital into banks, increase deposit insurance (for noninterest-bearing accounts) and guarantee new debt. I do not suggest that the unconditional loans administered during the last months of the Bush administration worked out well, but that is not Mr. Waters’ point.
If Mr. Waters is really complaining about the stimulus package, he should be aware that there were no “screaming economists.” Many wanted more and many wanted less, but there was a widespread recognition that a stimulus was required and that deficits would increase. He may wish to review the Nov. 8, 2008 New York Times opinion piece by Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw, economic adviser to President Bush and candidate Mitt Romney, in which Mankiw acknowledged that a stimulus would be necessary to support flagging demand. Many wanted it larger. The differences were over the speed, targeting and which mix would inspire consumer and market confidence in the short term and two years hence.
Mr. Waters makes harsh and partisan charges. He appears to want solutions without cost, a stimulus without deficit spending, tax cuts without increasing deficits and immediate results for problems decades in the making. Clearly, Mr. Waters is unhappy about the measures under way, but offers no better or
wiser course.
Robert Poyourow
UNM student
- |
by Post American
Partisan NEO-Conservative Republicans suffer terribly from cognitive dissonance ie Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, Glen Beck, Fox News, etc. They would benefit greatly by taking a course in critical thinking. regards
by slowhike
Just because all the hens cluck, doesn’t mean we should stop collecting the eggs. The problem of the obamaulus is the debt, and there’s no economic rocket science required for understanding what the “better course” for our country’s welfare would be. The alternate strategy is “no stimulus” and anyone that gets “stuck on stupid” and indicates that an alternate course is unavailable is clearly a staunch blind Democrat. Not giving my tax money to horribly failed business and letting them fail(as they should in a capitalist system) so that they can dish it out in bonuses to their cronies; would be a component of an alternate strategy. Reducing taxes and not attempting to wage a war, provide universal health care, and print money, all simultaneouly during the recession that we are attempting to resolve, would be another. These are a few of the alternate strategies. Everyone knows the Stimulus favored Democrat supporters anyway, and has been dished out in many cases like “political pork”.