Rynar wrote:
This era of American presidencies is literally courting open revolution at this stage. President Obama knows Milton Friedman was right. Major change doesn't arise democratically. It is spawned out of major economic upheaval. This administration is trying to create it in order to enact wholesale change.
So
that's what he meant with his vague "change"!
I'm usually of the opinion that it's difficult to make judgment calls on... just about anything, when you're an outsider without knowledge that the people on the inside making the decisions have.
At this point, though, I simply can't come up with any devil's advocate defenses. What can something like this accomplish other than staving off an immediate problem and making it worse? This isn't even a long-term kind of delay, either.
I can almost, almost go along with "start proper lending policies now and use taxpayer money to alleviate the problems resulting from the recent bad policy years" but a) that's hardly commendable to begin with, using money in such a way and b) even devil's-advocate-me won't believe the administration would be supportive of this sort of conservative shoring up. It would seem too much like doing nothing, with the negative of bailing out irresponsible homeowners.
I do sometimes worry about the whole "we must take charge of the situation and do something" ideology. A lot of the time it is correct. It's almost always a risk, though, and when that risk turns sour... maybe I'm just too conservative (in the non-political sense) but I'm not fond of such high stakes gambling, even if I liked the basic ideas behind it (which I don't). The whole spending more, more, more seems like it's the current administration's answer to everything -- gambling gambling gambling.