Fun Online Poll: Obama's trillion dollar bail out

I just don't get it.

In the UK, the Labour Party appear to have accepted that they've lost the next General Election and have gone for a economic scorched earth policy - interest rates are low (so can only rise); house prices are crashing; unemployment is soaring; sterling is at rock bottom and government deficits are off the scale. Fair enough, I'd classify that as 'bad' (as a taxpayer who will have to live through the recession/depresssion) but tactically, why should they make life any easier for the next Tory government?

Similarly, before he left office, George W Bush pumped hundred of billions of taxpayers' dollars into banks, presumably to help out his wealthy friends. Nobody in their right mind can imagine that this was for the benefit of 'Main Street', I'd classify that as 'sad' - it's a depressing fact that most politicians are in it to fill their boots.

Meanwhile, incoming US President Obama Bin Laden had a clean sheet. He could have done the sensible thing, blamed everything on George W Bush (fairly or unfairly) and, for example, gone for tax-cuts aimed at lower earners. But he didn't - he just doubled the size of the 'stimulus package' (a mixture of bail-out and pork barrel spending). So he has, effectively, scorched his own earth for the next four or eight years.

But why?

Is he really so stupid as to think it will help ('mad'); is he at heart a socialist who aims to keep the economy in ruins ('bad') or is he basically just corrupt ('sad')?

Click to vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.