Politics Forum

Midterms Matter!

11 Total Messages • Page 1 of 1 •
Bailout
kirkbrew
kirkbrew
10/2/2008 09:25 AM

What you say?

Originally, I was against it, but not looking at it different. I see this less as a bailout as a cash infusion into credit markets. The companies who caused the crisis have been taken over by the government or are out of business.

You may not be aware, but GM stopped some financing and GE has issued $12b in common stock to raise cash to operate. It seems that there is a fundamental vacuum at the top of the credit market and it is governments roll to fill that.

As for the “voice of the people”, well I have never thought much of the American people. Look at it this way.

1. They strongly supported the invasion of Iraq

2. They have negative savings

3. 40% believe in creationism.

As for the House, they are not that much smarter. Apparently, a summary sheet was issued to all members prior to the debate to define terms that were going to be used. It sounds like many of these yahoos don’t even know how our banking system works or how UBS is different from Leheman is different from Bank of America.

Now, that being said, this whole problem started with consumerism and greed. Those are not easy fixes.

ISEEDEADPEOPLEDA…
ISEEDEADPEOPLEDA…
10/2/2008 10:05 AM

I don't like it, but one has to look at it as liquidity and not bailing out Wall Street. As long as there's transparency I'm good to go (or as good as I can be). It sucks that our system can be brought to it's knees by those who give bad loans and by those who don't pay said loans. I think something along these lines has to be done. Now if you listen to alot of economists, they spin a different story of what to do than do politicians, but who knows. I'm just tired of my fucking retirement fund loosing 10% every quarter. It happened in '87. It's happening now. It'll happen again...unfortunately. The same fat cats will keep getting fatter off of our corpses.

1radioheader
1radioheader
10/3/2008 05:09 PM

I couldn't be more against this bailout. 700 billion is the tip of the iceburg, and that some money could be either

1. free health care for every child (<18) in America for the next 10 years

2. a 3,000 dollar "rebate" to every person in America

3. A public works project large enough to put wind and geothermal power across the nation as well as revitalize our power grid.

or we could save the money against our skyrocketing national debt and buttress the dollar before other nations begin selling treasury bills and inflation hits numbers that spin your head. . . . .

NO WAIT .. . ..

why don't we just give the money, with still little oversight, to companies that PROVED their incompetance (bad credit, no credit, no problem!!!. . . . wait, there is one little problem) by giving people who worked at Arby's 150,000 dollar loans in a time of historically low interest rates and put it up on variable terms that meant that when the fed raised rates from the cellar then these poor (literally) guys payments would jump up into untenable numbers. . . . what a great idea. . . . ..

But then again, im a capitalist. . . .. and being a capitalist means that you LET COMPANIES FAIL. . . . . . lets not put a band-aid on a head wound and pretend things are ok, you've merely pushed the problem off for a few MONTHS (at best, at worst the world market investors realize this is a big sign of desperation and despite/because of this effort then they begin to sell and the "run" begins that destroys our fake economy)

1radioheader
1radioheader
10/3/2008 05:16 PM

and kirk

IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS ROLE to fill a vacuum in the credit market .. . . . that would be a national bank, which runs contrary to American capitalism in its historic form and contrary to the "wealth of nations/Milton Friedman" idea of capitalism in theory and fact.

The governments role in capitalism is to REGULATE trade. Not be the instigator or lender of trade.

crucial difference.

Just Joshin -

Yeah most economists (not in the employ of the govt.) are HIGHLY against this move. Bush and Pelosi are for it.

Warren Buffett, T.Boone Pickins and Michael Bloomberg are against it.

Bush ran several companies and the US economy into the ground.

Pelosi has virtually no economic experience.

Buffett, Pickins, and Bloomberg are all self-made billionaires who have made sound strategic long-term economic decisions proving their value and expertise.

I know who I believe. and your retirement fund won't do any better if the dollar falls further or if inflation rises (which people are REAL reluctant to talk about, it IS the elephant in the room)

L2Think
L2Think
10/5/2008 08:04 AM

^^^Thanks for the great post. Couldn't have said it better myself.

barry2
barry2
10/6/2008 09:06 AM

that's all great radio1header....and i agree with you that the bailout was crap....but where does that leave us, because both freakin candidates endorsed this deal and helped make it go through........we shouldn't have been giving loans to people that couldn't afford it, and THAT is at the heart of all this finacial breakdown....and that policy (of giving home loans to people that couldn't afford it) came from sallie mae and freddie mac....find out for yourself who created these monsters, who went to battle for them to keep them out of congressional hearings in 2004 (and before), who was getting rich off of them, who was putting pressure on banks to make these types of loans....then cast your vote....but if you go in to vote without knowing what you are voting for then don't be angry at the results later....

ISEEDEADPEOPLEDA…
ISEEDEADPEOPLEDA…
10/6/2008 11:24 AM

i see where the the DOW dipped below 10,000 today for the first time in 4 years. only 98 stocks gained. who gained the most? Freddie Mac. over 56%. hmmmm....

1radioheader
1radioheader
10/6/2008 03:39 PM

I agree with you micapaw. . . . .I think the candidates showed their true colors by endorsing the deal .. . . .. makes me pissed

barry2
barry2
10/6/2008 04:39 PM

and pissed we should be.....all of OUR money going to fund these institutions that made ridiculously bad finacial risks......we need investigations o freddie and fannie and just what the heck was going on there made public with senate hearings...they are both (mccain/obama) in the senate and could call for these hearings....

barry2
barry2
10/6/2008 04:43 PM

and if there are no hearings, ask yourself why???...who is trying to hide it?...what i'm saying is investigate this yourself and be informed, don't just listen to one news source as they are all bias one way or another...so get both sides because chances are in most circumstance both sides reporting has some element of truth in it, just what they leave out is up to you to find out.....and the other side is probably blaring it loud and clear.....

1radioheader
1radioheader
10/6/2008 04:56 PM

micapaw. . . . . .

they are both trying to hide it.

both news outlets (styles as you believe lib/conserv) are working to sell the plan

the corporate masters have spoken

the SYSTEM is inheritantly corrupt.

keep this in mind

when the majority of the American people do not support a thing, and both BUSH and PELOSI push hard for it. . . . . . you will soon be made to grab your ankles. . . . .

I thought both sides (MCCain/Obama) missed an opportunity to distinguish themselves and take a real stand. . . ..i'm more disappointed with Mccain cause I've long believed that Obama is well in the hand of corporate wranglers .. . . but at least one of my senators and my house rep. voted no.. . . .. so I can vote for SOMEBODY without holding my nose

By using the forums you agree to comply with our Terms of Use