Posted by
Tom L. on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 12:00:00 AM
From The New York Times: “Mr. Obama acknowledged the anger felt by many Americans over the bailouts of banks, the automobile companies and homeowners who are in over their heads. But he made a case that all those steps were necessary, not to help the institutions or people receiving taxpayer money, but to avert deeper economic problems that would afflict everyone for years to come.”
So, I ask again: What is the upside for all those people, those 91%+ of Americans who lived within their means, who did not live “over their heads”?
If bailing out the 9% of "homeowners who are in over their heads" is necessary “to avert deeper economic problems that would afflict everyone for years to come”, why not take the money going to the 9% and instead give it to the 91% for them to spend? Spending is stimulus, right?
Again from The New York Times: “He was vague about how he intends to make health care more affordable and accessible…” and “The president waited until the last moments of his speech to address America’s relations with the world, and when he did, he struck broad themes while eschewing specific policy directives.”
Speeches only require the speaker to be vague and present broad themes. Leadership requires specific action.
Speeches, especially for a good presenter like the President are easy. Leadership, well, that is another matter.