Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Cindy of Nashville

Then Bush should have fought against the bailout instead of for it.


2 posted on 04/15/2009 12:59:50 PM PDT by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: cripplecreek

Bush should have fought for a lot of things that he didn’t fight for. It was the Achilles heel of his presidency.

He understood when he was up against with the islamists. With the leftists, not so much.


3 posted on 04/15/2009 1:02:44 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: cripplecreek

“Then Bush should have fought against the bailout instead of for it.”

To be fair, those are two different issues. One could argue, along with Ben “Helicopter” Bernanke that once the mistakes had been made, it was to dangerous to let the market correct itself. I don’t agree with that argument, but it isn’ty logically fallacious.


7 posted on 04/15/2009 1:05:09 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: cripplecreek

I thought Kanjorski said that the bailout was to cover the $550B 2 hour run on money markets on Sept 18, 2008.


18 posted on 04/15/2009 2:12:38 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson