4 ms·
Clearly. The reason they weren't mentioned is because nobody makes the claim that the bank bailouts served to generally improve the economy; they were primaril
by mquander 16y ago
Clearly. The reason they weren't mentioned is because nobody makes the claim that the bank bailouts served to generally improve the economy; they were primarily an attempt to loosen up the credit market.
They are not a very useful form of "stimulus," and it wouldn't make any sense to judge the efficacy of tax cuts, or that of government spending on jobs, based on the results of TARP.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- bugsy 16y agoThey were promoted by both majority parties not as stimulating the economy, but of saving it from otherwise certain collapse. They are also government spending which the NYT article claims hasn't happened. The exact statement in the article is: "Here’s what you need to know: The whole story is a myth. There never was a big expansion of government spending."