You argue that the economy is on the uptake -- that it is fixed -- and you argue that we need to keep spending the money that was supposed to fix said economy.
So, at what point WILL you argue that the spending planned for over the next several years should be cancelled?
While Bank of America aims to return the funds, Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis praised TARP last week for preventing a financial “meltdown.” JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon said it helped stabilize the banking system.
Wells Fargo Assails TARP, Calls Stress Test ?Asinine? (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
We gave $X to the banks, that needs to be repaid, and we're planning to speld $Y on everything else.
You're arguing that we need to keep spending $Y on everything else, until the banks repay $X.
Where is the necessary relationship between those two things?
A couple thoughts about assumptions behind the rhetoric here:
1) Is there something to the climate of fear that the Obama administration is talking about? That is, can fear in and of itself contribute to a downward spiral where people stop investing and buying?
If so, should the administration take it upon itself to inspire confidence?
2) Has anything significant happened to the economy since the election season comments of McCain? It seems to me that you can point to a stabilization of the banking industry (which could be considered a fundamental) since then.
If you answer "yes" to these questions, then I don't see much to criticize Obama on here except an awkward change in tone. This isn't just a political "gotcha", you have to form an opinion about what is and has been happening to our economy.