• chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    First off: Bush was President in 2008. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the bank bailout that started the Troubled Assets Relief Program) was signed into law on October 3rd, 2008 - 2 months before Obama was elected into office and 4 months before he took office.

    Second: Obama reduced the bailout by over 30% after taking office and the money was spent a little more wisely on reinvestment instead of simply giving the banks free money, which lead us to…

    Third: in the end the government actually profited over 120 billion dollars.

    So, yeah. Democrats handled the economy better. Just like they have since (checks notes) all of modern history.

    • LemmeAtEm@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      A large portion of the personal wealth in America is concentrated in real estate (mortgage debt).

      When Obama became president, he could have easily bailed out the 9 million American homeowners (predominantly low income black and Hispanic families), but instead he chose Wall Street, effectively facilitating the largest transfer of wealth from the black community to private capital in history.

      In this sense, Obama prevented future generations of black communities from ever becoming homeowners again.

      Similar trends are also happening under Biden’s policies today, the so-called “Bidenomics” where black unemployment has risen much faster than other demographics. These are all austerity measures designed to make poor minorities bear the brunt of the economic impact if only to slow the crumbling of the system itself.

      But since “the government actually profited” it’s all good, right?