Do you support the proposed bailout?

[kydmb99]

Simple question...

[ShotgunDMB]

No, but our economy is fucked without it. So what can you do?

[kydmb99]

No, but our economy is fucked without it. So what can you do?

This basically sums up my stance as well.

[VanHorneDog]

let the economy get fucked.

[ExistenceNow]

I have no idea if this is the answer or not, but something has to happen.

I have a shit ton of money tied up in the market in one fashion or another, so for fucks sake, something has to happen.

Fuck.

[WoodstockAimee]

Not really, but I understand it is necessary to move things along. Each tax payer will be paying about $3k each for this. I will be uber pissed if the CEOs get their bonuses, Washington knows people are upset about this. If they have any fucking sense left after all this, they'll try to rape us the least possible, I hope. Kinda makes that whole economic stimulus package seem like chump change. Fuckers!

[mdmarvich]

Has to be done. Actually thought Bush's speech last night was pretty good, apart from the inviting Obama & McCain back to the White House, and not taking any blame for the current predicament. Anyone else think he looked sick, worn out, etc?

[john baptiste]

hell no.

[mdmarvich]

hell no.


Then what, exactly, do you propose as an alternative?

[jiggajm18]

i don't really see another option.

could it have been prevented? most likely.

can we go back in the past and prevent it? nope.

[mdmarvich]

^ Correct.

[Lost Guitar]

I'll take Obama's stance: I oppose John McCain's stance, which is exactly the same as Joe Biden's stance. But I take no stance of my own. In other words, I am present.

[MistreatedLewis]

No, but our economy is fucked without it. So what can you do?

That actually means you support it.

[kydmb99]

let the economy get fucked.

:rolleyes

[raid24]

I dont like this at all, but dont really know enough about it. I voted NO because i hate the fact that every American citizen has to pay up to save companies that ran themselves into the ground, while the people at the top of those companies made more money than most small towns have.

[harryhoudini]

I dont like this at all, but dont really know enough about it. I voted NO because i hate the fact that every American citizen has to pay up to save companies that ran themselves into the ground, while the people at the top of those companies made more money than most small towns have.

to put it in really simple stupid terms, the idea is that we are spreading the debt on everyone (to the tune of about 3k per person) but the overall loss to the entire economy would be or could be much much higher than 3k person, and so this is necessary.

thats the idea, whether or not thats true and who that loss would be spread upon should the economy fall is another thing.

[marco j]

I do not support it.

Let the fuckers who benefitted the most in the past decade pay for it.

[jiggajm18]

I do not support it.

Let the fuckers who benefitted the most in the past decade pay for it.

but if those companies, and only those companies, pay for it - we are all in for a world of hurt.

[marco j]

but if those companies, and only those companies, pay for it - we are all in for a world of hurt.

So be it, we deserve it for puting these people into power and allowing them to deregulate the way they have. We need to take our lumps and learn fro this.

[raid24]

to put it in really simple stupid terms, the idea is that we are spreading the debt on everyone (to the tune of about 3k per person) but the overall loss to the entire economy would be or could be much much higher than 3k person, and so this is necessary.

thats the idea, whether or not thats true and who that loss would be spread upon should the economy fall is another thing.



My understanding is that this is somehow going to create a surplus because they are buying up these loans for cheap, then when things straighten out they plan on giving some back to the tax payers..... I doubt that will actually happen though. Its crazy to me that 94% of the loans are being paid, but the 6% of loans that arent are creating this much turmoil. The worst thing about this for me is that it is so far over my head(and most people heads i would think) that we just have to trust want the gov says needs to happen because we dont really understand it ourselves..... trusting the gov is always very scary

[marco j]

The lawyers that drafted the bill should be immediately disbarred for the language used in it.

Talk about scary.

[jiggajm18]

So be it, we deserve it for puting these people into power and allowing them to deregulate the way they have. We need to take our lumps and learn fro this.

why?

i've voted for more regulation since i was 18. i pay my bills on time. i live within my means. i deserve to be hit as little as possible. and bailing out those companies is the only option right now.

[marco j]

why?

i've voted for more regulation since i was 18. i pay my bills on time. i live within my means. i deserve to be hit as little as possible. and bailing out those companies is the only option right now.



Because it's the only option being given any media attention. People out there have other ideas but they are not being given the time of day to present them.


I understand and I agree but we should have been doing more to change the system, we are partly to blame.

How anyone could possibly trust George Bush and Co. to actually help us in this situation is truley one of the scariest things ever.

[jiggajm18]

Because it's the only option being given any media attention. People out there have other ideas but they are not being given the time of day to present them.


How anyone could possibly trust George Bush and Co. to actually help us in this situation is truley one of the scariest thingsa ever.

what other options are there RIGHT NOW?

[jiggajm18]

I understand and I agree but we should have been doing more to change the system, we are partly to blame.

correct. but we can't go back in the past and change things, can we?

[marco j]

what other options are there RIGHT NOW?

Take back money that the richest have earned from all of this, let them pay the majority of it.

[MistreatedLewis]

Take back money that the richest have earned from all of this, let them pay the majority of it.

I LIKE this plan :thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup :)

[jiggajm18]

Take back money that the richest have earned from all of this, let them pay the majority of it.

so freeze up even more liquidity? :lol

that's a recipe for disaster.

[kydmb99]

Take back money that the richest have earned from all of this, let them pay the majority of it.

That should be done after the bailout... We have to do something NOW.

[jiggajm18]

my point is not that the wall st executives shouldn't be held accountable. they absolutely should.

but if they stop lending money, we are going to be living in hoovervilles soon.

[jiggajm18]

That should be done after the bailout... We have to do something NOW.

exactly.

limiting their compensation and punishing them are two different things.

[marco j]

correct. but we can't go back in the past and change things, can we?

No, but we can trace the money gained from these companies and others during this time of deregulation and take it back. We need a full scale investigation into the practices of hundreds of companies over the past 20 years, to bring to light their practices and how a small few made billions knowing full well what would eventually happen.

[kydmb99]

No, but we can trace the money gained from these companies and others during this time of deregulation and take it back. We need a full scale investigation into the practices of hundreds of companies over the past 20 years, to bring to light their practices and how a small few made billions knowing full well what would eventually happen.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. However, that isn't going to solve our current crisis. It is the right thing to do and will help prevent this in the future but it doesn't stop what is going on now.

[jiggajm18]

No, but we can trace the money gained from these companies and others during this time of deregulation and take it back. We need a full scale investigation into the practices of hundreds of companies over the past 20 years, to bring to light their practices and how a small few made billions knowing full well what would eventually happen.

but that will take time. a lot of that money is in the hands of foreigners. we don't have the time for that.

you still haven't given me a feasible alternative that we can do right now.

[marco j]

so freeze up even more liquidity? :lol

that's a recipe for disaster.

You're not freezing it, you are going to buy up these loans just like they are expecting the tax payers to do.

That should be done after the bailout... We have to do something NOW.

No, this needs to be done immediately.

my point is not that the wall st executives shouldn't be held accountable. they absolutely should.

but if they stop lending money, we are going to be living in hoovervilles soon.

This is all specualtion. For fucks sake, the people telling us this are the same ones who have been telling us everything is fine. Now all of a sudden it's "doom and gloom" scare scare scare the shit out of us into giving them this money. Don't be fooled.

[jiggajm18]

This is all specualtion. For fucks sake, the people telling us this are the same ones who have been telling us everything is fine. Now all of a sudden it's "doom and gloom" scare scare scare the shit out of us into giving them this money. Don't be fooled.

have you been paying attention to the financial industry the past year or so?

while the severity of this is a surprise, the fact that these companies are in trouble is no surprise to me. they've been writing off tens of BILLIONS of dollars for well over a year. the fact that they've failed is no shocker.

[kydmb99]

You're not freezing it, you are going to buy up these loans just like they are expecting the tax payers to do.



No, this needs to be done immediately.



This is all specualtion. For fucks sake, the people telling us this are the same ones who have been telling us everything is fine. Now all of a sudden it's "doom and gloom" scare scare scare the shit out of us into giving them this money. Don't be fooled.

Something like that can't be done immediately. That would require a significant amount of time and money. The economy is literally on the brink of catastrophe every day. I think your idea comes more from the heart than the head.

[jiggajm18]

No, this needs to be done immediately.

again, we don't have the time to go through every bank's payout over the past 5 or so years.

[jiggajm18]

marco -

when we have the time to do what you propose, i completely agree with you. but we don't have the time right now.

[kydmb99]

again, we don't have the time to go through every bank's payout over the past 5 or so years.

Not to mention postponing a bailout and having the government go through this kind of long, arduous process would ruin whatever is left of consumer confidence. I mean the stock market dropped almost 3% the other day just because they were debating the bailout. What do you think would happen if they dropped it altogether and said they were going to just go back and try and get the money from the high-up's in these companies? The stock market would go belly up.

[jiggajm18]

Not to mention postponing a bailout and having the government go through this kind of long, arduous process would ruin whatever is left of consumer confidence. I mean the stock market dropped almost 3% the other day just because they were debating the bailout. What do you think would happen if they dropped it altogether and said they were going to just go back and try and get the money from the high-up's in these companies? The stock market would go belly up.

:thumbsup

plus, the companies will take the gov't to court. not to mention the fact that, technically, many of these companies weren't even violating laws.

[SatelliteEyes]

The problem as I see it is that a lot of companies and a lot of people got really fucking rich off these subprime loans over the past decade. Now that those loans arent worth the paper they are written on, there is a chance that all that money that was made by the rich people and the rich companies might disappear and all those poor bastards will lose their fortunes. This might have a ripple effect on the economy and so therefore the government is proposing that Joe Taxpayer come in and pay, what was it about 3k each) to make sure these huge corporations and the rick fuckers who work in them, dont lose their fortunes.

Yeah, how can you not be for this.

[jiggajm18]

The problem as I see it is that a lot of companies and a lot of people got really fucking rich off these subprime loans over the past decade. Now that those loans arent worth the paper they are written on, there is a chance that all that money that was made by the rich people and the rich companies might disappear and all those poor bastards will lose their fortunes. This might have a ripple effect on the economy and so therefore the government is proposing that Joe Taxpayer come in and pay, what was it about 3k each) to make sure these huge corporations and the rick fuckers who work in them, dont lose their fortunes.

Yeah, how can you not be for this.

do you have a job?

if you do, do you want to keep it?

[marco j]

Something like that can't be done immediately. That would require a significant amount of time and money. The economy is literally on the brink of catastrophe every day. I think your idea comes more from the heart than the head.

again, we don't have the time to go through every bank's payout over the past 5 or so years.

marco -

when we have the time to do what you propose, i completely agree with you. but we don't have the time right now.


We do have the time, these are nothing more than bully scare tactics to get what they want.

Do you guys really believe they didn't know what was going to happen?

[jiggajm18]

We do have the time, these are nothing more than bully scare tactics to get what they want.

Do you guys really believe they didn't know what was going to happen?

where did i say that?

but think about our how capitalistic system works.

it works by big companies lending other big companies money. lots of money. now imagine that money gone. not literally gone. but the lending of the money gone. now imagine applying for a loan. you have good credit. but there's no money being lended to the loaner. think you'll get approved?

[mdmarvich]

No, but we can trace the money gained from these companies and others during this time of deregulation and take it back. We need a full scale investigation into the practices of hundreds of companies over the past 20 years, to bring to light their practices and how a small few made billions knowing full well what would eventually happen.


That's basically any american that has a dime in the stock market.

[marco j]

That's basically any american that has a dime in the stock market.

There are many in that group that come from inside the markets/ and or helped create the deregulation that made them their wealth. This all goes back to a small number of people. CEO's leaving a company with 45 million while 20,000 employees lose their pension and retirement funds. That's stealing no matter how you right up the papers.

Take back this money and pay the fucking debt down.

[mdmarvich]

This is all specualtion. For fucks sake, the people telling us this are the same ones who have been telling us everything is fine. Now all of a sudden it's "doom and gloom" scare scare scare the shit out of us into giving them this money. Don't be fooled.


FACT: If banks stop lending money, our economy will crumble.

[mdmarvich]

There are many in that group that come from inside the markets/ and or helped create the deregulation that made them their wealth. This all goes back to a small number of people. CEO's leaving a company with 45 million while 20,000 employees lose their pension and retirement funds. That's stealing no matter how you right up the papers.

Take back this money and pay the fucking debt down.


So shareholders that benefited for decades should not be punished? Basically what you are saying is only punish rich people?

I agree people need to be punished for this disaster, but the bailout is needed NOW to minimize the effects on the overall economy. I want to keep my job. And my house.

[marco j]

FACT: If banks stop lending money, our economy will crumble.

True.


Let it crumble and then let's see if we do our duty and find those responsible and those who have gained the most from these rules(more than likely they were involved in the deregulation) and then string them up and take back the illegal money they made.

Just because people like McCain helped make it legal for these companies to do it doesn't make it right.

[marco j]

So shareholders that benefited for decades should not be punished? Basically what you are saying is only punish rich people?

I agree people need to be punished for this disaster, but the bailout is needed NOW to minimize the effects on the overall economy. I want to keep my job. And my house.

You are only going to lose your house if you can't pay your bill.

Let the investigations begin start the hunt for the bastards responsible and we will all make do until it's over. The world is not going to end because of this.

[mdmarvich]

True.


Let it crumble and then let's see if we do our duty and find those responsible and those who have gained the most from these rules(more than likely they were involved in the deregulation) and then string them up and take back the illegal money they made.

Just because people like McCain helped make it legal for these companies to do it doesn't make it right.

You are only going to lose your house if you can't pay your bill.

Let the investigations begin start the hunt for the bastards responsible and we will all make do until it's over. The world is not going to end because of this.




Let's see if you can follow this:

If we let the economy crumble, millions will lose their jobs. People without jobs cannot pay their mortgages. Get it???

[SatelliteEyes]

do you have a job?

if you do, do you want to keep it?

I do. I am a lawyer. People will still keep committing crimes (probably more) People will file more bankruptcies (probably more) Money problems will lead to more divorces, so yeah, I should be taken care of just fine.

[marco j]

Let's see if you can follow this:

If we let the economy crumble, millions will lose their jobs. People without jobs cannot pay their mortgages. Get it???

Please don't speak to me in this tone. I am 35 years old and have a wife, 2 kids and a home, I know exactly what's at stake here. I can't with a good conscience support this knowing full well it will only prolong the inevitable in the future. Take our lumps now and learn from them is my stance.

[mdmarvich]

Please don't speak to me in this tone. I am 35 years old and have a wife, 2 kids and a home, I know exactly what's at stake here. I can't with a good conscience support this knowing full well it will only prolong the inevitable in the future. Take our lumps now and learn from them is my stance.

So you would, in good conscience, rather sit back, do nothing, and watch millions of Americans lose their jobs and their homes? Hmmm.

Obviously you don't know what's at stake here. We can either do nothing and spiral downward, or pass the bailout and lessen the blow.

And by the way, anyone who supports letting our economy crash deserves a much worse tone than I used.

[SatelliteEyes]

Bailing out the economy and bailing out the rich fuckers who made millions on the backs of bullshit investments the past 10 years are two different things. We should do what we can to help the economy, but I also want to see the people who benefited the most from these ridiculous investments lose something.

[MistreatedLewis]

Bailing out the economy and bailing out the rich fuckers who made millions on the backs of bullshit investments the past 10 years are two different things. We should do what we can to help the economy, but I also want to see the people who benefited the most from these ridiculous investments lose something.

Unless they committed fraud they shouldn't face jail time, but they should be sued for every penny they own for ruining the American economy.

[marco j]

So you would, in good conscience, rather sit back, do nothing, and watch millions of Americans lose their jobs and their homes? Hmmm.

Obviously you don't know what's at stake here. We can either do nothing and spiral downward, or pass the bailout and lessen the blow.

And by the way, anyone who supports letting our economy crash deserves a much worse tone than I used.

This will not happen over night and we can reclaim much of this money through law suits and/or seizing assets because of fraud.

Bailing out the economy and bailing out the rich fuckers who made millions on the backs of bullshit investments the past 10 years are two different things. We should do what we can to help the economy, but I also want to see the people who benefited the most from these ridiculous investments lose something.

Unless they committed fraud they shouldn't face jail time, but they should be sued for every penny they own for ruining the American economy.


:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

[mdmarvich]

Unless they committed fraud they shouldn't face jail time, but they should be sued for every penny they own for ruining the American economy.


Yes, after we take immediate action to save the economy.

[mdmarvich]

This will not happen over night and we can reclaim much of this money through law suits and/or seizing assets because of fraud.


You, OBVIOUSLY, do not comprehend the magnitude of this problem...

[MistreatedLewis]

Yes, after we take immediate action to save the economy.

:thumbsup of course

[chr35919]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26886362#26886362

deal near done

[marco j]

You, OBVIOUSLY, do not comprehend the magnitude of this problem...


OK whatever you say.:rolleyes


If this was so sudden and unexpected, why did the president plan on their being turmoil here at home nearly a month ago?

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...eland_090708w/

[mdmarvich]

^link didn't work, but I'm sure it was irrelevant anyway.

[chiznaz]

No, but we can trace the money gained from these companies and others during this time of deregulation and take it back. We need a full scale investigation into the practices of hundreds of companies over the past 20 years, to bring to light their practices and how a small few made billions knowing full well what would eventually happen.

It wasn't a small few who made billions. Do you understand how mortgage backed securities are written, who invests in them, how they are valued? If you really want to do this, then I suggest you lead the door-to-door crusade knocking on millions of investors homes and taking their money. Taking back all of the executives pay from the past 2 years won't even scratch what is needed in this bailout.


This is all specualtion. For fucks sake, the people telling us this are the same ones who have been telling us everything is fine. Now all of a sudden it's "doom and gloom" scare scare scare the shit out of us into giving them this money. Don't be fooled.

You really don't understand the magnitude of this problem.

We do have the time, these are nothing more than bully scare tactics to get what they want.

Do you guys really believe they didn't know what was going to happen?

Some did and some didn't. The bet was that housing prices (the underlying assets) would increase in value on average. People and varying opinions on this. Obviously the big investment banks thought they would go up and very SEVERELY leveraged with it.

I do. I am a lawyer. People will still keep committing crimes (probably more) People will file more bankruptcies (probably more) Money problems will lead to more divorces, so yeah, I should be taken care of just fine.

I hope you work for cheap:)

[jiggajm18]

i'm sorry marco, but you haven't given one feasible solution to what we can do RIGHT NOW.

most of your POVs, i agree with - but they just won't be able to happen right now.

[marco j]

i'm sorry marco, but you haven't given one feasible solution to what we can do RIGHT NOW.

most of your POVs, i agree with - but they just won't be able to happen right now.


I'd say we are in a panic right now and the last thing we should do is rush to do anything. This should be well thought out and executed with the greatest of care.

Can we agree on that?

[jiggajm18]

I'd say we are in a panic right now and the last thing we should do is rush to do anything. This should be well thought out and executed with the greatest of care.

Can we agree on that?

i can agree with that.

but our capitalistic system demands that we need a constant flow of money. i'm not saying i agree with it. but that's the way it is.

[mdmarvich]

i'm sorry marco, but you haven't given one feasible solution to what we can do RIGHT NOW.

most of your POVs, i agree with - but they just won't be able to happen right now.

I admire your tact. Something I need to improve upon.

I'd say we are in a panic right now and the last thing we should do is rush to do anything. This should be well thought out and executed with the greatest of care.

Can we agree on that?

No, we can't. Do to the magnitude of this problem, immediate action is needed to improve the liquidity in the marketplace.

[marco j]

i can agree with that.


[QUOTE=mdmarvich;8263834]No, we can't.


:lol:thumbsup

[jiggajm18]

I admire your tact. Something I need to improve upon.

No, we can't. Do to the magnitude of this problem, immediate action is needed to improve the liquidity in the marketplace.

thanks :thumbsup

and :thumbsup to that. i just don't think he understands the basic functions of capitalism.

[mdmarvich]

[quote=jiggajm18;8263825]i can agree with that.





:lol:thumbsup


:ugh

[mdmarvich]

thanks :thumbsup

and :thumbsup to that. i just don't think he understands the basic functions of capitalism.


Agreed.

[jiggajm18]

[quote=marco j;8263864]


:ugh

by agreeing with having a discussion, i don't mean i agree that this needs to be deliberately delayed. i mean that we should have a discussion on what the bailout plan consists of. i think this week (where we had discussions in congress) was handled well.

that's what i was agreeing with about discussions.

[mdmarvich]

[quote=mdmarvich;8263871]

by agreeing with having a discussion, i don't mean i agree that this needs to be deliberately delayed. i mean that we should have a discussion on what the bailout plan consists of. i think this week (where we had discussions in congress) was handled well.

that's what i was agreeing with about discussions.


That's what I figured.

[jiggajm18]

you made it look like you quoted yourself......

[seekupchuck]

No, but our economy is fucked without it. So what can you do?


This is a lie.

[mdmarvich]

Ahhh, I see. Whoops!

[mdmarvich]

This is a lie.

This is a lie.

[jiggajm18]

This is a lie.

yea, let's prevent billions of dollars from being circulated in the financial markets. brilliant idea :rolleyes

[jiggajm18]

This is a lie.

don't waste your time with him.

[seekupchuck]

I have no idea if this is the answer or not, but something has to happen.

I have a shit ton of money tied up in the market in one fashion or another, so for fucks sake, something has to happen.

Fuck.

There are children starving in Africa.

[mdmarvich]

Bottom line here, Shotgun, Lewis, Jigga, and myself all agree this is needed. /thread.

[mdmarvich]

There are children starving in Africa.


Yes, and donations to charities will certainly increase if our economy tanks....wait a second.......

[chiznaz]

Bottom line here, Shotgun, Lewis, Jigga, and myself all agree this is needed. /thread.

I guess I'm the guy screaming in the back of the room but no one hears;):lol

[seekupchuck]

So be it, we deserve it for puting these people into power and allowing them to deregulate the way they have. We need to take our lumps and learn fro this.


Exactly. Again, where are all the tough neocons now? Have we really become this pussified?

An addict has to hit rock bottom before it can be saved. We have become a nation of addicts.

[jiggajm18]

Exactly. Again, where are all the tough neocons now? Have we really become this pussified?

An addict has to hit rock bottom before it can be saved. We have become a nation of addicts.

but many haven't, including myself.

i'd much rather take the hit and pay 3K in taxes towards this bailout than be out of a job.

[seekupchuck]

Let's see if you can follow this:

If we let the economy crumble, millions will lose their jobs. People without jobs cannot pay their mortgages. Get it???


I get it. If millions of people lose their jobs because of the government, if millions of people cant pay their mortgages because of the government, and millions of people band together and actually hold the government responsible, we could "keep" our homes if we really wanted. Catch my drift? This SHOULD not be out of the question for Americans. Remember how we started this country?

[mdmarvich]

I get it. If millions of people lose their jobs because of the government, if millions of people cant pay their mortgages because of the government, and millions of people band together and actually hold the government responsible, we could "keep" our homes if we really wanted. Catch my drift? This SHOULD not be out of the question for Americans. Remember how we started this country?


Oh my.

[seekupchuck]

but many haven't, including myself.

i'd much rather take the hit and pay 3K in taxes towards this bailout than be out of a job.

I understand that notion. I think this will allow us to assume minimal damages for the near future. Putting economic collapse off for a decade does not sound like a better option than dealing with it at its core now. I think it is cowardly to put it off, if we can agree that eventually it will have to be fixed. Even if we can put it off for 50 years, than our kids get to go through the bottoming out or the depression scenario? I dont like that.

[seekupchuck]

Oh my.


Why do you find this ridiculous?

[jiggajm18]

I understand that notion. I think this will allow us to assume minimal damages for the near future. Putting economic collapse off for a decade does not sound like a better option than dealing with it at its core now. I think it is cowardly to put it off, if we can agree that eventually it will have to be fixed. Even if we can put it off for 50 years, than our kids get to go through the bottoming out or the depression scenario? I dont like that.

no one is arguing against that.

it's moronic to think that we legitimately have another option than this, though.

[seekupchuck]

Bottom line here, Shotgun, Lewis, Jigga, and myself all agree this is needed. /thread.


Ahhh...the Bilderbergers of Ants:lol

[seekupchuck]

no one is arguing against that.

it's moronic to think that we legitimately have another option than this, though.

The other option is to allow the market to bottom out! And deal with it from there.

[jiggajm18]

The other option is to allow the market to bottom out! And deal with it from there.

notice i said LEGITIMATE option. letting it bottom out is not a legitimate option.

[marco j]

no one is arguing against that.

it's moronic to think that we legitimately have another option than this, though.

The other option is to allow the market to bottom out! And deal with it from there.


Someone's going to have to deal with it sooner or later. I'd rather do it than my children.

[jiggajm18]

Someone's going to have to deal with it sooner or later. I'd rather do it than my children.

so mr. "the preyed upon borrowers need to be protected" is all for letting millions of baby-boomers' 401(k) accounts collapse as soon as they're about to retire? :confused

[seekupchuck]

Yes, and donations to charities will certainly increase if our economy tanks....wait a second.......


Cuz we were doing such a good job while the dow was climbing.

[marco j]

so mr. "the preyed upon borrowers need to be protected" is all for letting millions of baby-boomers' 401(k) accounts collapse as soon as they're about to retire? :confused

It is going to happen eventually, it may be in five years or fifty but it will happen. Who should have to go through the harder times, the people who helped forge the very fiasco or our grandchildren?

[seekupchuck]

notice i said LEGITIMATE option. letting it bottom out is not a legitimate option.


Many economists disagree with this.

[seekupchuck]

Someone's going to have to deal with it sooner or later. I'd rather do it than my children.


Well, you are a man. :thumbsup

[jiggajm18]

It is going to happen eventually, it may be in five years or fifty but it will happen. Who should have to go through the harder times, the people who helped forge the very fiasco or our grandchildren?

i'm 22. i have the time to let the market go up.

my dad's 58. he's about to retire. luckily, he has a pension. but if he didn't, he'd be hurt worse than i am.

[jiggajm18]

Many economists disagree with this.

like who?

[seekupchuck]

so mr. "the preyed upon borrowers need to be protected" is all for letting millions of baby-boomers' 401(k) accounts collapse as soon as they're about to retire? :confused

They deserve it more than our children. Fuck, it happened on there watch.

[jiggajm18]

They deserve it more than our children. Fuck, it happened on there watch.

but not everyone's. you don't seem to understand that.

[seekupchuck]

like who?


Peter Schiff for one.

[jiggajm18]

my dad is making a shirt that says:

"Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Mondale"

:lol

[jiggajm18]

Peter Schiff for one.

link?

[seekupchuck]

i'm 22. i have the time to let the market go up.

my dad's 58. he's about to retire. luckily, he has a pension. but if he didn't, he'd be hurt worse than i am.


So your dad has to keep working and you and your family band together and make the best of it. Or is that too hard for us pampered Amewicanz?

[jiggajm18]

So your dad has to keep working and you and your family band together and make the best of it. Or is that too hard for us pampered Amewicanz?

my dad didn't take out an ARM or a subprime mortgage.

[seekupchuck]

link?


http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5063

[jiggajm18]

http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5063

he was the economic adviser for ron paul........................

[marco j]

he was the economic adviser for ron paul........................

and?!

[seekupchuck]

he was the economic adviser for ron paul........................


Are you seriously gonna take that route? Peter Schiff is considered a financial genius by people of all political affiliation. I give a link to his explanation and LEGITIMATE alternative to the shit bailout and you come back with that juvenile crap.

Check out how Euro-Pacific has done on the markets compared to your other "reputable" firms.

[seekupchuck]

he was the economic adviser for ron paul........................


Are you someone who absolutely will not accept any information from someone you disagree with? That is a pretty sad learning process.

[seekupchuck]

he was the economic adviser for ron paul........................


Also, If anyone in here wants to try and say that McCain or Obama understands economics more than Ron Paul, they are fooling themselves.

You want some more juice on Peter Schiff? He co wrote a tax honesty book with his father, who is a well known government dissenter who has been jailed numerous times.:ugh

[jiggajm18]

Are you seriously gonna take that route? Peter Schiff is considered a financial genius by people of all political affiliation. I give a link to his explanation and LEGITIMATE alternative to the shit bailout and you come back with that juvenile crap.

Check out how Euro-Pacific has done on the markets compared to your other "reputable" firms.

and he is also known as Dr. Doom throughout the financial industry for his bearish views on the economy.

is he the only economist who thinks we are legitimately better off if we don't bail out these companies?

[harryhoudini]

http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5063

its a well pointed piece, but i think there is a middle ground. i'm not going to say i have anywhere near the economic background he has (i have a finance degree and took 5 or 6 econ classes, but i'm not an expert) but i think his point is an extreme.

i do agree that it could go there though, hyper inflation, etc. but i think the american worker, in general, has a higher knowledge base than most of the rest of the world. and we also house some of the smartest people in this world, who will figure out how to earn money in this new economic state and bring some of that wealth back to america.

i think he hit the nail on the head that we will go into a nasty, deep recession/depression if we don't act, but i disagree that we are just delaying that process if we do act.

i don't see why if the gov't buys these bad securities, and the american market stabilizes and starts getting back on track, then down the line the mortgages get paid, thus re-imbersing the government money that was fronted, that this will automatically mean a recession later on. not if we fix what we were doing before, and do what they are putting in place.

again, i'm not saying its a surefire fix, but i dont' understand why we are just delaying the inevitable.

[seekupchuck]

and he is also known as Dr. Doom throughout the financial industry for his bearish views on the economy.

is he the only economist who thinks we are legitimately better off if we don't bail out these companies?


Certainly not, he is the one that jumped out at me through my research into Paul. Basically any Austrian Theory economists will share this point of view.

Schiff is thought of as Dr. Doom, because he tells the truth. Dont you consider it smart and admirable that his firm was able to successfully predict these events and actually make money in the international markets and commodities markets? I would think we would lend credibility to a man who has shown such foresight.

[seekupchuck]

its a well pointed piece, but i think there is a middle ground. i'm not going to say i have anywhere near the economic background he has (i have a finance degree and took 5 or 6 econ classes, but i'm not an expert) but i think his point is an extreme.

i do agree that it could go there though, hyper inflation, etc. but i think the american worker, in general, has a higher knowledge base than most of the rest of the world. and we also house some of the smartest people in this world, who will figure out how to earn money in this new economic state and bring some of that wealth back to america.

i think he hit the nail on the head that we will go into a nasty, deep recession/depression if we don't act, but i disagree that we are just delaying that process if we do act.

i don't see why if the gov't buys these bad securities, and the american market stabilizes and starts getting back on track, then down the line the mortgages get paid, thus re-imbersing the government money that was fronted, that this will automatically mean a recession later on. not if we fix what we were doing before, and do what they are putting in place.

again, i'm not saying its a surefire fix, but i dont' understand why we are just delaying the inevitable.

Yeah, no one knows for sure.:thumbsup I agree that we will not go as extreme as a place like Zimbabwae, for the reasons you stated among others. Those same reasons are the ones I cite for us to be in position to deal with this in a non-bailout form and still have a very bad economic period, but avoid a "great depression"

[thatguymikey2]

I love how republicans support socialism and government interference, but only if its the "only option", especially when it was their fault to begin with because they kept ignoring the problem and repeating the mantra "the economy is fine, the economy is fine, the economy is fine".

[jiggajm18]

I love how republicans support socialism and government interference, but only if its the "only option", especially when it was their fault to begin with because they kept ignoring the problem and repeating the mantra "the economy is fine, the economy is fine, the economy is fine".

they were saying that less than a month ago (!) at their convention.

[harryhoudini]

Yeah, no one knows for sure.:thumbsup I agree that we will not go as extreme as a place like Zimbabwae, for the reasons you stated among others. Those same reasons are the ones I cite for us to be in position to deal with this in a non-bailout form and still have a very bad economic period, but avoid a "great depression"

fair enough, but i think we don't know how hard of a crash we will have if we dont' go through with it.

one way i see it is with the bailout you have some to a lot of inflation, companies sort of getting off the hook, but all in all people still have jobs and lenders are still lending . there is still things being churned out and things are moving. without the bail out there is a chance that millions of jobs will be lost, and it ain't easy getting the employment train running again once it stops.

i'll take a method that keeps people employed, keeps the american public busy, and does not kill our image abroad (it just makes it look really really bad) over something that could very well not provide any of the above.

with that said we better get some smart ass people in washington to figure out a plan to get us out of bailout mode and back to open/slightly more regulated markets. and i mean multiple real smart people, not one smart dude that calls the shots and sets arbitrary interest rates.

[seekupchuck]

I love how republicans support socialism and government interference, but only if its the "only option", especially when it was their fault to begin with because they kept ignoring the problem and repeating the mantra "the economy is fine, the economy is fine, the economy is fine".


It is the "Illusion of Choice" phenomenom. Parties mean absolutelt nothing, but we have been convinced that they matter, the illusion of choice. It is hands off divide and conquer.

Ill give another example how the parties are really illusions. Conservatives are against socialized schools, right? The concept at least. They have had a republican president and a republican congress till06. Did they try to eliminate public schools? No, what big, core conservative value did they address/change. It is all an illusion. The plan has been set for this nation, and nothing of any real consequence will change with the current 2 party corporate system.

[seekupchuck]

fair enough, but i think we don't know how hard of a crash we will have if we dont' go through with it.

one way i see it is with the bailout you have some to a lot of inflation, companies sort of getting off the hook, but all in all people still have jobs and lenders are still lending . there is still things being churned out and things are moving. without the bail out there is a chance that millions of jobs will be lost, and it ain't easy getting the employment train running again once it stops.

i'll take a method that keeps people employed, keeps the american public busy, and does not kill our image abroad (it just makes it look really really bad) over something that could very well not provide any of the above.

with that said we better get some smart ass people in washington to figure out a plan to get us out of bailout mode and back to open/slightly more regulated markets. and i mean multiple real smart people, not one smart dude that calls the shots and sets arbitrary interest rates.

I understand this, but what IF it contributes to a larger, more destructive collapse in the future, for our kids? How do you feel about that possibility?

And dont count on a group of smart men. Remember, Paul Bremer was ALONE in Iraq, taking advise from no one but Bush/Rummie/Cheney

[jiggajm18]

I understand this, but what IF it contributes to a larger, more destructive collapse in the future, for our kids? How do you feel about that possibility?

what IF we let the market collapse and our country never recovers?

[seekupchuck]

what IF we let the market collapse and our country never recovers?

I am thinking Belize or the Netherlands myself, U?

[harryhoudini]

I understand this, but what IF it contributes to a larger, more destructive collapse in the future, for our kids? How do you feel about that possibility?

And dont count on a group of smart men. Remember, Paul Bremer was ALONE in Iraq, taking advise from no one but Bush/Rummie/Cheney

i don't feel good about it, but i think the bailout could work. i don't know which would be worse (bad effects of a failed bailout or letting things work out now) although i agree i'd probably take everyone failing now then the effects of a failed bailout. but i think it will work.

i'm not counting on the smart group, i'm just saying it would be a really really smart move.

[jiggajm18]

I am thinking Belize or the Netherlands myself, U?

italy, probably.

[Bartndrpleez]

I love how republicans support socialism and government interference, but only if its the "only option", especially when it was their fault to begin with because they kept ignoring the problem and repeating the mantra "the economy is fine, the economy is fine, the economy is fine".

And the mere thought of "universal healthcare" is socialist, Marxist, communist, and every other extreme leftist word in the book, but bailing out billion dollar mega-conglomerates because they, jointly with the federal government, fucked up, we the taxpayers should foot the bill of upwards of $700 billion and maybe even $1 trillion+ in the long run. That makes sense to me...































:BANG:BANG:BANG:BANG:BANG

[seekupchuck]

italy, probably.

Paisan!

[Nick@Night]

what IF we let the market collapse and our country never recovers?
We live in tent communities and barter for goods and services?

[jimibadfish]

No, the banking/lending industry should be nationalized.

[jimibadfish]

And the mere thought of "universal healthcare" is socialist, Marxist, communist, and every other extreme leftist word in the book, but bailing out billion dollar mega-conglomerates because they, jointly with the federal government, fucked up, we the taxpayers should foot the bill of upwards of $700 billion and maybe even $1 trillion+ in the long run.

The only way the government fucked up was by lack of oversight. More economic oversight would move us further towards socialism which is something I fully support in our globalized world.

So by your own deduction, had we been more socialist, this would have been avoided.

:ggoat

[Lcsulla]

No, in principle I do not support it. Unfortunately, I see no other way to proceed. If we don't bail them out how long do you figure it takes them to foreclose on all their BS loans, kick out the home 'owners' and allow the speculators to gobble up these properties and structures for pennies on the dollar where they will sit on them until the market goes back to normal?

Catch 22 here. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[john baptiste]

No, in principle I do not support it. Unfortunately, I see no other way to proceed. If we don't bail them out how long do you figure it takes them to foreclose on all their BS loans, kick out the home 'owners' and allow the speculators to gobble up these properties and structures for pennies on the dollar where they will sit on them until the market goes back to normal?

Catch 22 here. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
serious question. what if i didn't? how does this affect me if i don't have a mortgage, don't work in the mortgage industry. the gov't is bailing these guys out with money the gov't doesn't have, so how does it affect average russ taxpayer who has nothing directly involved in the mortgage game?

[jimibadfish]

how does it affect average russ taxpayer who has nothing directly involved in the mortgage game?

Negatively. Like me. *E-high five*

[marco j]

they were saying that less than a month ago (!) at their convention.

McCain was saying it less than a week ago.:lol

italy, probably.

Me too, my wife and I both have family there.

Paisan!


Hello:)

[jiggajm18]

serious question. what if i didn't? how does this affect me if i don't have a mortgage, don't work in the mortgage industry. the gov't is bailing these guys out with money the gov't doesn't have, so how does it affect average russ taxpayer who has nothing directly involved in the mortgage game?

are you a student?

are you ever going to buy a house?

buy a new car?

do you depend on a credit card?

do you work for a national or international corporation?

[jiggajm18]

Me too, my wife and I both have family there.

where in italy?

my mom's family is from around milan. dad's is from sicily, siragusa to be exact. the ones in sicily are the only ones we have ever contacted, though.

[marco j]

where in italy?

my mom's family is from around milan. dad's is from sicily, siragusa to be exact. the ones in sicily are the only ones we have ever contacted, though.

My wife's family is around Lucca and my grangfather's side is around Naples.
Universal healthcare there.:)

[Nick@Night]

serious question. what if i didn't? how does this affect me if i don't have a mortgage, don't work in the mortgage industry. the gov't is bailing these guys out with money the gov't doesn't have, so how does it affect average russ taxpayer who has nothing directly involved in the mortgage game?
Unless you had the actual cash to buy the big ticket items a person gets (house, cars, sending your kid to college, etc) you'd be shit out of luck, the borrowing window would be closed.

[jiggajm18]

My wife's family is around Lucca and my grangfather's side is around Naples.
Universal healthcare there.:)

plus beautiful women as well.

[marco j]

plus beautiful women as well.

Yep, married one.:D

[Nick@Night]

Yep, married one.:D
Was she looking over your shoulder when you said that? :p

[defcon]

I'm a libertarian. What do you think?

No N O. No. (enn oooh)

Dems/Liberals want to use it to bail out irresponsible homeowners and borrowers who took out irresponsible lines of credit, often exaggerating income and assets, and who failed to understand the nature of the paperwork they signed, lived well above their means...there are few, if any victims here...

Republicans and the Bush administration want to write a blank check to Investment Banks/Giants and let them handle it. Here, let's give you this check, you give us a security interest in your non-existent assets/accounts receivable, and we won't really own it but it will seem like we will in a very extreme form of Social Reaganomics. I don't know, $700b would be the largest piece of fiscally relevant action since the New Deal.

Right now, it looks like some combination of the two will happen, which I wouldn't be totally opposed to if it meant I could get a loan by which to return to school in the next year.

The market will correct itself. Let it do that. The Bush administration are showing the full extent of their hypocritical nature. Either they are trying to save their legacy or something more noble, but I doubt it.

We are not, I repeat, not going into a depression if this legislation doesn't get passed The only thing that would actually cause a depression would be the media and public reaction to this. And thanks to all the attention, that's what we have. Now, if this doesn't get passed, just like they ran out of gas in the aftermath of the storms, so to shall we see shortages of money as people start to freak out, withdraw their investment assets, and bunker down.

In turn, this may actually help the depression or recession further spiral out of control.

Your money isn't going anywhere, that's why we have the FDIC. Chill out, ride out this storm, we are, and have been for a few months, in a recession, or the very cusp of one. It's going to get far worse before it gets better, but I honestly hope that the people don't cause a depression.

Socialism, Corporate Fascism Socialist Reagonomics, or the free market? What would Adam Smith, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and even Alexander Hamilton do?

Free market.

[marco j]

Was she looking over your shoulder when you said that? :p

Nah she's picking my son up from school, I'm watching the little one.

[DMBisTBOWA]

Dear Friends:
The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.
The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.
The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?
Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.
The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.
I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.
H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.


Guess who?

[seekupchuck]

We live in tent communities and barter for goods and services?


Works at Bonnaroo and Rothbury!:thumbsup

[marco j]

^So TBOWA, do you support the supposed bailout?

[DMBisTBOWA]

^So TBOWA, do you support the supposed bailout?
no i do not

[seekupchuck]

Dear Friends:
The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.
The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.
The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?
Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.
The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.
I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.
H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.


Guess who?

Damn straight Ronnie!

[defcon]

Wow. If only I could have been this eloquent. Who said this? Wait, don't even need to guess. Ron Paul

Well, I can't state a preference for president in 2012 or 2016, but if more people could see this viewpoint, which I suspect they will, he could be a viable candidate. The problem? The media, which is manipulated by the very people who pay for the campaigns.

I have been considering leaving the United States for a few months, expatriating, as they call it...now seems like a very, very good time to do so...and if I like it, and if things get worse or more irresponsible, hypocritical, etc...I just might stay. At least Europe sticks with socialist capitalism. It doesn't abandon its ideals out of convenience and a quick fix, and it actually seems to be working, sad to say.

[seekupchuck]

My wife's family is around Lucca and my grangfather's side is around Naples.
Universal healthcare there.:)

Pops from Calabria, Mom came here from Chicano(outside of Rome) when she was 15.:thumbsup

Wops in the house.:bounce

[marco j]

no i do not

It was a joke, of course you don't.;)

Pops from Calabria, Mom came here from Chicano(outside of Rome) when she was 15.:thumbsup

Wops in the house.:bounce


I swear I have family there too, I'll have to ask.

And the last.....:multi:multi:multi

[seekupchuck]

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

Word up RP. You want to know what is even more beautiful about the above passage from Paul? He actually wrote it. All we get from Obama or McCain are prepared statements from speech writers.

[jiggajm18]

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

Word up RP. You want to know what is even more beautiful about the above passage from Paul? He actually wrote it. All we get from Obama or McCain are prepared statements from speech writers.

obama writes almost all of his speeches.

[seekupchuck]

obama writes almost all of his speeches.

Ehhhh, Not saying I dont believe you, but I am skeptical.

[seekupchuck]

obama writes almost all of his speeches.

What do you think about Ron Paul's claim that the 1921 panic was more successfully handled when bailout policies were not used?

[jiggajm18]

Ehhhh, Not saying I dont believe you, but I am skeptical.

so what makes you unskeptical of ron paul?

[jiggajm18]

What do you think about Ron Paul's claim that the 1921 panic was more successfully handled when bailout policies were not used?

wait, 1921?

[ExistenceNow]

There are children starving in Africa.


Assuming I care, and assuming I would like to do something to help them, would I be more able to do so if I lose all my money or less able?

Or were you just giving me some perspective? If so, thanks, now I feel better.

[DMBisTBOWA]

obama writes almost all of his speeches.
The problem with Obamas speeches isnt whether he writes them it is that they lack substance. He is a good speaker, the speeches that he delivers though are not very good. Not to take anything away from the McCain, his lack substance too but he isnt a great speaker either.

[jiggajm18]

The problem with Obamas speeches isnt whether he writes them it is that they lack substance. He is a good speaker, the speeches that he delivers though are not very good. Not to take anything away from the McCain, his lack substance too but he isnt a great speaker either.

i'd say that's a matter of opinion.

[DMBisTBOWA]

i'd say that's a matter of opinion.
Yes it is. What did you think of the letter from RP I posted?

[jiggajm18]

Yes it is. What did you think of the letter from RP I posted?

i agree that we don't learn from history, that we shouldn't be in this position in the first place.

i disagree with not supporting the bailout.

from my impression of history, we weren't as capitalistic in the 20s and 30s. and certainly not as internationally financed. correct?

[seekupchuck]

Assuming I care, and assuming I would like to do something to help them, would I be more able to do so if I lose all my money or less able?

Or were you just giving me some perspective? If so, thanks, now I feel better.

Just perspective.:D

[DMBisTBOWA]

i agree that we don't learn from history, that we shouldn't be in this position in the first place.

i disagree with not supporting the bailout.

from my impression of history, we weren't as capitalistic in the 20s and 30s. and certainly not as internationally financed. correct?
We were very capitalistic in the 20's. I do not know how internationally financed we were in the '21 but I definitely think before the great depression we were pretty well internationally financed. When we went into the great depression so did the rest of the world.

[jiggajm18]

We were very capitalistic in the 20's. I do not know how internationally financed we were in the '21 but I definitely think before the great depression we were pretty well internationally financed. When we went into the great depression so did the rest of the world.

wasn't in the crash in 1929.......

[seekupchuck]

so what makes you unskeptical of ron paul?

His track record and my people reading skills. The man is as consistent and moral as any politician we have.

[marco j]

His track record and my people reading skills. The man is as consistent and moral as any politician we have.

Yes he's a smart man but the media would never support a man who knows the US government was involved in the attacks on 9/11.

[seekupchuck]

Yes he's a smart man but the media would never support a man who knows the US government was involved in the attacks on 9/11.


He has said this? I always kind of assumed he believed this but everything I hear from him he denounces 9/11 conspirators. He is all for a more thorough investigation and would like certain questions answered.

But yeah, he is far to nosey for the powers that be.

[marco j]

He has alluded to it on several occassions.

[DMBisTBOWA]

wasn't in the crash in 1929.......
yes the crash that led to the great depression. Their was one in 21 though too which is what RP was referring to. In 21 the gov did not bail anyone out and the markets corrected themselves in 29 the gov did all types of different stuff that only prolonged the depression until WWII

[seekupchuck]

yes the crash that led to the great depression. Their was one in 21 though too which is what RP was referring to. In 21 the gov did not bail anyone out and the markets corrected themselves in 29 the gov did all types of different stuff that only prolonged the depression until WWII

Yes sir:thumbsup

[seekupchuck]

He has alluded to it on several occassions.


You got a link for a brotha?

[marco j]

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/

[ShotgunDMB]

McCain should've picked Romney. It would be nice to have at least one person who knows that the hell they're talking about when it comes to economics in this race.:o

[seekupchuck]

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/


From what I see, he simply is in favor of a independent investigation, which isnt too controversial. Believing that the government covered certain aspects up after the fact and believing the government did it are two seperate stances as far as I am concerned. Thanks for the link though.

[VanHorneDog]

:rolleyes

maybe letting the economy get fucked will teach people to use credit better, save and spend wisely?

all this is doing is postponing the inevitable. unless the average american starts to pay off their debt instead of spend money our economy will eventually get fucked over by this. But, if we dont spend our money our economy will slow.

Whats better a fucked economy in a standstill becuase nobody can get credit? or a slow economy rebuilding itself under guided leadership? :shrug

[kydmb99]

maybe letting the economy get fucked will teach people to use credit better, save and spend wisely?

all this is doing is postponing the inevitable. unless the average american starts to pay off their debt instead of spend money our economy will eventually get fucked over by this. But, if we dont spend our money our economy will slow.

Whats better a fucked economy in a standstill becuase nobody can get credit? or a slow economy rebuilding itself under guided leadership? :shrug

So you would rather go through a depression like era in order to teach people how to spend their money?

Also, what exactly are you, and others who keep saying this, basing your assumption that this is somehow just going to delay the inevitable? I see no reason we can't save the economy and learn valuable lessons at the same time. There is no reason to allow an epic collapse of the economy just to prove a point.

[WoodstockAimee]

^Especially since only a small minority of the population had these subprime mortgages. Something like 5%...that doesn't seem fair to me to let the economy fall for the remaining 95% of people who, even some with alot of credit debt, were still paying their bills and at least maintaining. The government is essentially responsible for this, so I see no other way around it. I still haven't heard exactly what the alternative would be when Buffet I believe said Heaven help us.

[WoodstockAimee]

So the House Republicans are stalling this, have they come up with an alternative? I mean really, wtf?

[jiggajm18]

maybe letting the economy get fucked will teach people to use credit better, save and spend wisely?

all this is doing is postponing the inevitable. unless the average american starts to pay off their debt instead of spend money our economy will eventually get fucked over by this. But, if we dont spend our money our economy will slow.

Whats better a fucked economy in a standstill becuase nobody can get credit? or a slow economy rebuilding itself under guided leadership? :shrug


ok, but i DO NOT need to learn how to use credit wisely. my credit's fine. i live within my means. i'd much rather pay 3K more in taxes for the bailout than face a depression.

[seekupchuck]

ok, but i DO NOT need to learn how to use credit wisely. my credit's fine. i live within my means. i'd much rather pay 3K more in taxes for the bailout than face a depression.

You guys have a serious comprehension problem dont you? You keep saying that this is better than a depression. Ignoring information and evidence that states one will come EITHER way. So the choice is to deal with it now and face a shorter depression, or prop it up again and face an even larger crisis in the future.

Jigjam, you never addressed the evidence the Ron PAul presents on this theory. The fact that the market went down the shitter in 1921 and was left to correct itself, which it did in a year or so. The govt interveined in 1929 and the depression lasted 10 friggin years. Not to mention another notion that KEEPS GETTING IGNORED, that this is cowardly and irresponsible to lay at the feet of our children.

Open up your ears, there is an alternative to this bailout.

[jiggajm18]

You guys have a serious comprehension problem dont you? You keep saying that this is better than a depression. Ignoring information and evidence that states one will come EITHER way. So the choice is to deal with it now and face a shorter depression, or prop it up again and face an even larger crisis in the future.

Jigjam, you never addressed the evidence the Ron PAul presents on this theory. The fact that the market went down the shitter in 1921 and was left to correct itself, which it did in a year or so. The govt interveined in 1929 and the depression lasted 10 friggin years. Not to mention another notion that KEEPS GETTING IGNORED, that this is cowardly and irresponsible to lay at the feet of our children.

Open up your ears, there is an alternative to this bailout.

i asked a question, whether or not we were as capitalistic and as financially international as we are now. i don't think we were. plus, our foreign debt is unreal right now. i don't know the numbers, but i'm betting that we are in more foreign debt now than we were in the 20s.

the situations are very different, IMO.

[dmbinchicago]

What the hell was Bush thinking? He just basically walked out and told the press that there's "a big problem" and that they were going to work it out... then walked back in to the White House. The markets aren't going to like that.

[hermit]

I wonder how much McCain's wife stands to lose if this is not fixed?

[harryhoudini]

The fact that the market went down the shitter in 1921 and was left to correct itself, which it did in a year or so. The govt interveined in 1929 and the depression lasted 10 friggin years. Not to mention another notion that KEEPS GETTING IGNORED, that this is cowardly and irresponsible to lay at the feet of our children.

what about the fact that from 1921-1929 there was unsubstantiated optimism in the stock market? what about the fact that after the market corrected, a massive bubble took place that lead to another collapse less than a decade later?

i agree, the collapse in '29 wasn't handled perfectly, but its not like the collapse in 1921 was flawless either.

[jiggajm18]

what about the fact that from 1921-1929 there was unsubstantiated optimism in the stock market? what about the fact that after the market corrected, a massive bubble took place that lead to another collapse less than a decade later?

i agree, the collapse in '29 wasn't handled perfectly, but its not like the collapse in 1921 was flawless either.

and what about the fact that our savings rate now is as low as it's ever been?

and what about the fact that our financial markets are funded primarily on foreign debt?

the situations are totally different.

[BreakFree27]

Lou Dobbs just said that America would be better off with NO bailout at all.

[41 Step]

I don't know enough about it to take a stance.

[GinaNMU]

No, but our economy is fucked without it. So what can you do?

First time we've ever agreed.

[Beefsteak1138]

Nope. I don't support this.
_____________________________________
Sharp LCD TVs (http://www.lcd-tv-store.co.uk/products/Browse-By-Brand/Sharp.html) Compra accessori per iphone (http://it.bestshopping.com/serp.html?search=iphone&x=0&y=0&r=1) Scared of flying (http://www.gogetterjetsetter.com/scared-of-flying.php) exotic shoes (http://www.timsboots.com/exdrsh.html)

Spamtastic.

[marco j]

I still don't approve the bailout.


How about a 700 billion dollar stimulus package to every man/woman over the age of 18!?

It would certainly get people buying houses again and spending money.

[thatguymikey2]

I cannot approve the bailout. Whether it works or not I could care less, but its fundamentally unsound when your government decides to give people a pat on the back for handling large quantities of money corruptly. I do like that it shows we can be for government intervention if its necessary, that might be a big step for conservatives looking back.

[dre2142]

Market is crashing and the bill is not going to pass!

[jmudmbphan]

I really dont see how 99% of us can have a valid opinion ont he matter..

the experts really cant decide if this will help or hurt....i doubt many of us have enough of an economic background to really answer this opinion intelligently..

personally, I have no idea whether to support this or not.

[TMoore4075]

Well it got killed in the house so this version you don't have to worry about.

[dmbphan041]

fuck no.

[rconverse]

I still don't approve the bailout.


How about a 700 billion dollar stimulus package to every man/woman over the age of 18!?

It would certainly get people buying houses again and spending money.

I thought somewhere the math was done on that and it was like $400/person. Not enough to really do anything. :shrug

I really dont see how 99% of us can have a valid opinion ont he matter..

the experts really cant decide if this will help or hurt....i doubt many of us have enough of an economic background to really answer this opinion intelligently..

personally, I have no idea whether to support this or not.

Glad I am not the only one who feels this way.

[marco j]

I thought somewhere the math was done on that and it was like $400/person. Not enough to really do anything. :shrug



How many Americans over the agae of 18, 215 million perhaps?!

What's 700 billion divided by 215 million?

[TMoore4075]

I don't know if I think it will help or hurt but not passing it sure is hurting right now. DOW is down 700 last time I checked.

Final vote

205-228

[rconverse]

how many americans over the agae of 18, 215 million perhaps?!

What's 700 billion divided by 215 million?

$3,200

[marco j]

$3,200

That sounds better than saving those company's.

[dre2142]

How many Americans over the agae of 18, 215 million perhaps?!

What's 700 billion divided by 215 million?


came out to be 440 bucks per person..nevrmind..that was set for when the figure was 85 billion

[marco j]

came out to be 440 bucks per person

No it's more, do the math.

[jiggajm18]

I still don't approve the bailout.

How about a 700 billion dollar stimulus package to every man/woman over the age of 18!?

It would certainly get people buying houses again and spending money.

but the companies need money to lend to other companies.

we (unfortunately, IMO) live in a capitalistic society. companies need money. if companies don't have money, we're all screwed. you just don't seem to understand the basic functions of our society.

if the bill doesn't pass and these companies go under, saving $3200 won't mean jack shit, because millions of americans will be out of a job.

[dre2142]

Yeah, 3200 per 18+ is nothing.

[Crazy#41]

It failed..

but what did pass was a 1 trillion dollar defense bill with no issues:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/100524/with_all_eyes_on_the_bailout,_house_passes_trillio n-dollar_defense_bill/

Jeez... Maybe us poor Canadians should defend ourselves from now on instead of relying on Americans..

[rconverse]

How many Americans over the agae of 18, 215 million perhaps?!

What's 700 billion divided by 215 million?

but the companies need money to lend to other companies.

we (unfortunately, IMO) live in a capitalistic society. companies need money. if companies don't have money, we're all screwed. you just don't seem to understand the basic functions of our society.

if the bill doesn't pass and these companies go under, saving $3200 won't mean jack shit, because millions of americans will be out of a job.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no economist, but money has to come from somewhere. We can't just keep borrowing. Where/when does it end? I guess I feel that this bailout may only be a band-aid and we need major surgery. Is this completely faulty logic?

[dmbinchicago]

I can't believe this. How does Pelosi survive this shit show?

[Crazy#41]

How many Americans over the agae of 18, 215 million perhaps?!

What's 700 billion divided by 215 million?



In the U.S, 100,000,000 people pay taxes (99,880,223 in 2005)

[Trippin4136]

I suspect that Congress people running for re-election in November were afraid to vote for the bail-out measure because there weren't enough protections for the people that can't make the mortgage payments. Bail out of the banks, but not of the people. OK, no approval of the measure and we all go down the drain. The members of Congress evidently care more of getting re-elected than doing was needs to be done. I wonder if the members of Congress actually digested he bill, or if they simply voted against it. This is very bad news. We are a stupid, greedy, and irresponsible people all in one package.

[MontaukNY]

It failed..

but what did pass was a 1 trillion dollar defense bill with no issues:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/100524/with_all_eyes_on_the_bailout,_house_passes_trillio n-dollar_defense_bill/

Jeez... Maybe us poor Canadians should defend ourselves from now on instead of relying on Americans..
Maybe you Canadians will be seeing an influx of Americans after this bullshit.

[jiggajm18]

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no economist, but money has to come from somewhere. We can't just keep borrowing. Where/when does it end? I guess I feel that this bailout may only be a band-aid and we need major surgery. Is this completely faulty logic?

correct. but we don't have the time to do major surgery on our markets right now.

and most of the money, like always, will be coming from foreign debt :shrug

[marco j]

In the U.S, 100,000,000 people pay taxes (99,880,223 in 2005)

Well that just turned the figure into 70,000 per person!!! :eek

That would certainly help my debt problem!

[dmbinchicago]

Pelosi is speaking right now. She looks like she wants to vomit. Rahm Emanuel, too. He was my congressman for awhile, and he's usually pretty effective, but this is just a joke.

[TMoore4075]

Now I'm not blaming one side or another, democrats could have passed this pretty much on their own, especi