265
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
265 points (96.8% liked)
politics
18883 readers
5089 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I've read his autobiography focusing on this period, iirc according to him his advisors said there were basically only three options.
Bail out the banks who had a part in causing the issue and subsequently failed. (His least favorite but what he ultimately picked)
Bail out the mortgages of the people who were at risk of foreclosure. (His favorite option)
Complete nationalization of failed banks with extra actions like forgiving all at risk mortgages (He was tepid on this)
The problem was that those solutions are in order of increasing expense and decreasing likelihood of Congress's will to pass. Meanwhile the economy was burning down and his advisors were saying we could have another great depression if action wasn't taken immediately.
That’s interesting. I may read his autobiography myself. Personally, I’d have preferred to see him try to pass mortgage relief through Congress and fail, than to go right for the bank bailout. I can see how timeliness was his priority, but our unhoused numbers and housing market would look very different had mortgage relief passed.
Oh yeah in hindsight most people would say they'd prefer the mortgage bailout rather than the bank bailout. But when you're a young president in your first days of office and people with economics degrees are screaming about how it's all burning down..
I understand why he did what he did, should've definitely still tried to of gotten way more mortgage relief afterwards though.
I just wanted to note that it wasn't exactly the sneering "Yes let me fuck over the working class as much as possible for my neoliberal values" as some people claim.
I was unaware of the motive, and assumed it was related to the Citigroup members of his cabinet. It’s nice to know the inside track. I’m still critical of the decision, but at least I understand it better now. My previous perspective always conflicted with my understanding of his leadership.