Org Mobile Site
View Poll Results: Bailout or Let the Market Work Itself Out?
Bailout
22
30.56%
Let the Market Work
50
69.44%
Voters: 72. This poll is closed
Thread: BAILOUT: Yes or No?
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
I haven't decided yet, I'd have to know what the effects of the market collapsing would be. Saying "let it burn and we'll become stronger afterwards" is too vague. Consider that during the stock market crash of 1929 only 2 percent of the population owned stock...
Oh no, don't get me wrong, I think leaving the market alone will lead to an immense tragedy. I'm just saying to hell with it. We deserve hellish torment for letting it get this bad.I haven't decided yet, I'd have to know what the effects of the market collapsing would be. Saying "let it burn and we'll become stronger afterwards" is too vague. Consider that during the stock market crash of 1929 only 2 percent of the population owned stock...
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
Oh no, don't get me wrong, I think leaving the market alone will lead to an immense tragedy. I'm just saying to hell with it. We deserve hellish torment for letting it get this bad.
What infuriates me, and I can't emphasize this enough, is that the people who most were responsible for this are not going to suffer, no matter which way the bailout decision goes. In either case the pain is left with the taxpayers. I don't think a crash would fix a thing or make any of the people who did this "hurt." We'd need mass mobbings and guillotines to accomplish that.Oh no, don't get me wrong, I think leaving the market alone will lead to an immense tragedy. I'm just saying to hell with it. We deserve hellish torment for letting it get this bad.
And of course, since you don't like the capitalists gaining too much money, and being responsible for this vicious cicle, makes you either a socialist or a communist (In the USA I think.) I think a good left-wing socialist welfare state would only revive the USA and help terminate some of the most stupid things I've seen in the Western world.
Originally Posted by Jolt:
And of course, since you don't like the capitalists gaining too much money, and being responsible for this vicious cicle, makes you either a socialist or a communist (In the USA I think.) I think a good left-wing socialist welfare state would only revive the USA and help terminate some of the most stupid things I've seen in the Western world.
Frequently called a Commie, yes, but since anything to the left of Margaret Thatcher = Communist to American Republicans, it's a rather meaningless blanket.And of course, since you don't like the capitalists gaining too much money, and being responsible for this vicious cicle, makes you either a socialist or a communist (In the USA I think.) I think a good left-wing socialist welfare state would only revive the USA and help terminate some of the most stupid things I've seen in the Western world.
Originally Posted by :
WON'T? As far as I'm aware, the Great Depression only got "Great" because one of the "measures" the current president at that time did was letting the market work for itself.
Hubert got everyone to try to pump money into it a few ruined billianorees latter it was worse. Throwing money at a black hole dosn't mean you plug it.WON'T? As far as I'm aware, the Great Depression only got "Great" because one of the "measures" the current president at that time did was letting the market work for itself.
The CEO's ought to be held accountable for such disasters. Stockholders don't care about the longterm health of a company because the vast majority of them is only waiting for a good moment in the near future to sell them. Making this change won't solve the current mess but will prevent future ones if implemented properly.
I just voted no. I think it would be preferable if the government would just buy a ton of houses from involvant families and some of the mortgages (not the crappiest ones at the bottom of the pile, though), or any solution that doesn't involve shareholders.
I just voted no. I think it would be preferable if the government would just buy a ton of houses from involvant families and some of the mortgages (not the crappiest ones at the bottom of the pile, though), or any solution that doesn't involve shareholders.
The House says: No!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
Markets, understandably, plummet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
Markets, understandably, plummet.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
What infuriates me, and I can't emphasize this enough, is that the people who most were responsible for this are not going to suffer, no matter which way the bailout decision goes.
I think I heard something on the news about a possible investigation that may result in jail time for the CEO's. Anyone got info on that?What infuriates me, and I can't emphasize this enough, is that the people who most were responsible for this are not going to suffer, no matter which way the bailout decision goes.
EDIT: Also, the current situation should really shake even the most hardened freemarketeer up from his daydreaming and face the reality that the current system just isn't working. If this had happened in a country like the USSR, China or EU, conservative yanks would be relentless in their criticism of it.
A handy graphic from the LA Times:
This has been a long time in coming, and the people say they want change. Thus, its time to start anew, and the cards will fall as they may. Most are sick of the betrayal, thieving, and lies. The ledger must be balanced, all debts cleared, and atonements made! Prepare the bounty hunters, inform the hangman and ready the gallows...
the piper may now be paid, and watch oil fall like a rock!
CmacQ
the piper may now be paid, and watch oil fall like a rock!
CmacQ
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
I think I heard something on the news about a possible investigation that may result in jail time for the CEO's. Anyone got info on that?
Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae get subpoenasI think I heard something on the news about a possible investigation that may result in jail time for the CEO's. Anyone got info on that?
AIG has been under investigation since March
Lehman/FM/FM/AIG, the first time I saw anything about the investigations.
To my untrained eye, the FBI is mainly looking into accounting issues, whether or not they broke laws by hiding losses in financial reports. If they can find some cooking of the books, maybe we can claim some heads.
I think I'm fairly happy with the House right now. I'm sure this is going to be painful, but the fact that neither party's leadership could get enough votes (for different reasons) makes me feel better. Revolt!
Just so we all know, apparently the failed vote was entirely Obama's fault.
“From the minute John McCain suspended his campaign and arrived in Washington to address this crisis, he was attacked by the Democratic leadership: Senators Obama and Reid, Speaker Pelosi and others. Their partisan attacks were an effort to gain political advantage during a national economic crisis. By doing so, they put at risk the homes, livelihoods and savings of millions of American families. [...]
“Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.
“This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.”
“Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.
“This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.”
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Just so we all know, apparently the failed vote was entirely Obama's fault.
Just so we all know, apparently the failed vote was entirely Obama's fault.
“From the minute John McCain suspended his campaign and arrived in Washington to address this crisis, he was attacked by the Democratic leadership: Senators Obama and Reid, Speaker Pelosi and others. Their partisan attacks were an effort to gain political advantage during a national economic crisis. By doing so, they put at risk the homes, livelihoods and savings of millions of American families. [...]
“Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.
“This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.”
“Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.
“This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.”
Didn't he disagree with the bailout in the first place and suggested an alternative move?And the money I still got on the market do not approve this chain of events
Edit: CR didn't most of the ones in congress voting no belong to the Republican party?
Um, McCain's blaming the dem leadership there, Lemur.
And the democrats control Congress. I'm getting a mite sick of the democrats never taking responsibility and blaming everything bad on the minority party.
CR
And the democrats control Congress. I'm getting a mite sick of the democrats never taking responsibility and blaming everything bad on the minority party.
CR
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Just so we all know, apparently the failed vote was entirely Obama's fault.
Who says the vote was a failure?Just so we all know, apparently the failed vote was entirely Obama's fault.
I think the real interesting thing about the above story is how it illustrates the complete lack of political courage on behalf of the Democrat leadership in Congress. They're blaming the GOP for not supporting the bill and causing it's failure, when in fact it would've easily passed without GOP help were it not for the fact that 40% of their own party members voted against it as well.
Blaming Republicans makes for convenient cover for the lack of leadership on behalf of House Democrats.
Blaming Republicans makes for convenient cover for the lack of leadership on behalf of House Democrats.
Originally Posted by :
ABC News: White House Has Been Told By Democrats "That There Is No Deal If McCain Doesn't Go Along." "A Democratic leadership source says that White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has been told that Democratic votes will not be there if McCain votes no — that there is no deal if McCain doesn't go along." (George Stephanopoulos, "McCain; Holds Key To Administration's Bailout Passage On Capitol Hill," ABC News, 9/23/08)
Translation: We're too gutless to pass this bill that we're telling everyone needs to pass unless a majority of Republicans also approve of it to give us political cover. They want the Republicans on board too so they won't take any blame if the thing blows up on them. Very courageous.... ABC News: White House Has Been Told By Democrats "That There Is No Deal If McCain Doesn't Go Along." "A Democratic leadership source says that White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has been told that Democratic votes will not be there if McCain votes no — that there is no deal if McCain doesn't go along." (George Stephanopoulos, "McCain; Holds Key To Administration's Bailout Passage On Capitol Hill," ABC News, 9/23/08)
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Um, McCain's blaming the dem leadership there, Lemur.
And the democrats control Congress. I'm getting a mite sick of the democrats never taking responsibility and blaming everything bad on the minority party.
CR
Um, McCain's blaming the dem leadership there, Lemur.
And the democrats control Congress. I'm getting a mite sick of the democrats never taking responsibility and blaming everything bad on the minority party.
CR
Very good point.
I just read this?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): "We Need The Republican Nominee For President To Let Us Know Where He Stands And What We Should Do." Reid: "We need, now, the Republicans to start producing some votes for us. We need the Republican nominee for president to let us know where he stands and what we should do." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Conference, Washington, D.C., 9/23/08)
What the hell does this mean? I thought he was the Senate's Majority Leader?
CmacQ
Fun video from 2004.
The GOP wanted more regulations on Fannie and Freddie, with Baker predicting a bailout from taxpayers. The dems fought any more rules on their friends, the GSEs.
CR
The GOP wanted more regulations on Fannie and Freddie, with Baker predicting a bailout from taxpayers. The dems fought any more rules on their friends, the GSEs.
CR
So when the government uses a not-quite privatized pair of corporations to avoid the market and give out risky loans, the market is at fault? I see.
Not that another $1T matters. You think there's going to be a depression now, how about when we can't pay the interest on our debt.
Not that another $1T matters. You think there's going to be a depression now, how about when we can't pay the interest on our debt.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
They want the Republicans on board too so they won't take any blame if the thing blows up on them. Very courageous....
yepThey want the Republicans on board too so they won't take any blame if the thing blows up on them. Very courageous....
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
I think the real interesting thing about the above story is how it illustrates the complete lack of political courage on behalf of the Democrat leadership in Congress. They're blaming the GOP for not supporting the bill and causing it's failure, when in fact it would've easily passed without GOP help were it not for the fact that 40% of their own party members voted against it as well.
Actually, the salient breakdown wasn't between Dems or Repubs. The real difference was between Congressmen who are up for re-election this year and those who are not.I think the real interesting thing about the above story is how it illustrates the complete lack of political courage on behalf of the Democrat leadership in Congress. They're blaming the GOP for not supporting the bill and causing it's failure, when in fact it would've easily passed without GOP help were it not for the fact that 40% of their own party members voted against it as well.
It's remarkable to see how strong a relationship there is between today's failed vote on the bailout and the competitive nature of different House races.
Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.
By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.
Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.
By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.
And I'm with drone — it's not at all clear that this vote was a failure. Let's see how not spending a trillion or so works out.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Um, McCain's blaming the dem leadership there, Lemur.
And the democrats control Congress. I'm getting a mite sick of the democrats never taking responsibility and blaming everything bad on the minority party.
CR
Welcome to the club, like that hasn't been par for course for the past 8 years. And you need to get your facts straight, it's Bush and McCain trying to shove through a bailout, and the reason one wasn't passed last week was the Republican holdouts. Now it looks like (because of popular sentiment) both parties are having trouble getting a majority on board, either way. So we can drop the Republican persecution complex.Um, McCain's blaming the dem leadership there, Lemur.
And the democrats control Congress. I'm getting a mite sick of the democrats never taking responsibility and blaming everything bad on the minority party.
CR
Yeah, it's interesting that even though he suspended his campaign to work on this issue, Johnny Mac didn't have the pull to swing Repub Congresscritters to the side of Socialism. Bush is a wildly unpopular lame-duck president, so no surprises there — he could hardly be expected to move this thing.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Actually, the salient breakdown wasn't between Dems or Repubs. The real difference was between Congressmen who are up for re-election this year and those who are not.
And I'm with drone — it's not at all clear that this vote was a failure. Let's see how not spending a trillion or so works out.
Actually, the salient breakdown wasn't between Dems or Repubs. The real difference was between Congressmen who are up for re-election this year and those who are not.
It's remarkable to see how strong a relationship there is between today's failed vote on the bailout and the competitive nature of different House races.
Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.
By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.
Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.
By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.
And I'm with drone — it's not at all clear that this vote was a failure. Let's see how not spending a trillion or so works out.
I'm with you both. Plus I want some very steep prison time.
At first I was for a modified bailout plan. Now I'm perfectly content to watch the market burn.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Yeah, it's interesting that even though he suspended his campaign to work on this issue, Johnny Mac didn't have the pull to swing Repub Congresscritters to the side of Socialism. Bush is a wildly unpopular lame-duck president, so no surprises there — he could hardly be expected to move this thing.
Bush and McCain being hardcore for something that a lot of Republicans seem to be against should be yet another identity crisis checkpoint for the party. But a lot of people seem happier to pretend the Reps are all of one mind on this and it's the Dems being the problem.Yeah, it's interesting that even though he suspended his campaign to work on this issue, Johnny Mac didn't have the pull to swing Repub Congresscritters to the side of Socialism. Bush is a wildly unpopular lame-duck president, so no surprises there — he could hardly be expected to move this thing.
P.S. Cheers from a Dem against the bailout.... this is a non-partisan issue.
Indeed let it burn. Enough with giving away taxpayer's money to bail out irresponible yuppies.
Leadership on both sides is severely lacking. The President, as one WaPo columnist recently stated, isn't a lame duck, he's a dead duck. Pelosi has been terrible as Speaker, the House Dems need to vote her off the island soon.
Originally Posted by drone:
Leadership on both sides is severely lacking. The President, as one WaPo columnist recently stated, isn't a lame duck, he's a dead duck. Pelosi has been terrible as Speaker, the House Dems need to vote her off the island soon.
A dead duck still contaminated with a wildly virulent and contagious plague would be even more apt. Even Republicans don't want to touch him with a 10 foot stick, even at their own convention. ;)Leadership on both sides is severely lacking. The President, as one WaPo columnist recently stated, isn't a lame duck, he's a dead duck. Pelosi has been terrible as Speaker, the House Dems need to vote her off the island soon.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Yeah, it's interesting that even though he suspended his campaign to work on this issue, Johnny Mac didn't have the pull to swing Repub Congresscritters to the side of Socialism. Bush is a wildly unpopular lame-duck president, so no surprises there — he could hardly be expected to move this thing.
Yes but what about those 94 Democrats who voted against the bill? A higher percentage of Democratic Congressmen broke with their party and voted against the bill than Republicans who bucked their party and voted for it. Of those 94 votes the Democrats couldn't scratch out the 20 or so needed to pass the bill?Yeah, it's interesting that even though he suspended his campaign to work on this issue, Johnny Mac didn't have the pull to swing Repub Congresscritters to the side of Socialism. Bush is a wildly unpopular lame-duck president, so no surprises there — he could hardly be expected to move this thing.
Thanks for that link referencing election year concerns. It should never come as a surprise when a politician puts re-election before principles (although, in this case many Republicans were actually voting for their traditional party principles as opposed to those who broke with said principles during the spending binges that took place during the Bush administration).
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO