Why do you liberals insist on continuing with this, it could have been much worse theory? There is no proof to back up what you are saying.
For example, tell Me how 8 of the biggest banks taking this money, that were in such deep trouble, managed to repay these loans with interest of about $4 billion in under a year? Thats a quick turnaround for any company that was in serious trouble wouldn't you agree? Even more so when you take into consideration the shape of our economy.
I have no doubt that you were one of the liberals that were squealing like a pig over the huge bonuses paid to these CEO's that received bail out money, but what you fail to understand is most of those bonuses are performance based bonuses, as per their contract. Simply put, these banks were making money, the amount of money being made was what determined their bonuses.
So you don't find it troubling that 8 of the biggest banks in the US paid back their so called loans in under a year with interest, made enough money to pay these bonuses to the CEO's , in the economy we had from late in 2008 to late 2009 ? Maybe it's just me, but makes me wonder just how much trouble those banks were in to begin with.
As for the car companies, you are going under the assumption, that if the government would have stayed out of it altogether that they would have gone out of business, and there is no proof that such a thing would have happened. They could just as easily gone into bankruptcy without government interference, and come out of it even stronger then what they are now, because it would have allowed them to get out from under some of the contracts that are still killing them. You just have no reliable way of saying that it would have been worse if the government would have stayed out it.
eace
