@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:
This is what I truly agree with - if we let everything collaspe we are all screwed. Punish those that caused the problem.
The one other thing to remember - a "bailout" of say $700 billion or whatever the actual price tag is does not mean that the government owes this amount. They are buying the equity of these companies. If they get the price tag right - meaning they actually pay the amount this equity is worth - it could actually be a win-win situation. If these companies involved turn around as a result, the tax payers will actually earn money out of the deal - in other words if the value of this equity goes up, the government can turn around and sell the equity for more than the $700 billion and make money off the deal. If it goes down, then the government loses whatever the equity goes down by - unlikely to go to $0 so the actual cost will be less than the $700 b.
Why do you think Buffet bought so much equity of Merrill?
This is the part that most people aren't understanding and which our fearless leaders aren't explaining well at all. Perhaps it is because most don't really understand it themselves? Or are terrified the 'other party' (or its presidential candidate) will get credit? Or because they do in fact understand it and are not agreed on how it should be put together? Or they aren't content to focus on the single issue and are trying to include a bunch of other stuff? Or all of the above? Or . . . .? Or . . . .? Or. . . .?
(In other words, I agree with you that there is no advantage to letting the financial institutions collapse.)
For sure none of us are getting the whole skinny from the mainstream media who has a tough enough time getting the date right on their newscast or news story or whatever. So you read and read and read and try to piece it together as well as you can and hope to hell they know what they are doing.
So far as I can discern from newscasts, radio reports, and newspaper clips, the summary so far seems to be:
Harry Reid demanded that McCain come help with the deal.
When McCain announced he was going to help with the deal, Harry Reid told him he wasn't needed to help with the deal.
McCain went anyway amidst accusations of grandstanding for political advantage and assertions that a deal was essentially already finalized.
It turns out no deal was finalized at all--Republican leaders in House had had no input and had not been consulted on the deal. There was stuff on the table but almost no agreement on any kind of deal.
Meanwhile Obama who first magnanimously announced that he could walk and chew gum at the same time and didn't need to go to Washington to be a part of it all is summoned by the President and decides to go. His staff arms him with a copy of the House (not Senate) plan to study enroute and he goes into the initial meeting with the President, McCain, and other party leaders. When he interjects the House plan that disgrees strongly with the Senate plan, he triggers a food fight and the meeting dissolves without accomplishing much of anything.
Republican leaders don't like McCain much and were reluctant to make his input integral in the plan but McCain is the standard bearer for the party and they sort of have to let him have his say.
Meanwhile, the mostly left tilting mainstream media manages to sway public opinion that McCain overstepped his authority and he tanked in the polls. This may be why he changed his mind and decided to be at the debate tonight. I don't know. Nobody I've heard has speculated on that.
Obama again voted 'present' and announced it wasn't good to interject Presidential politics into the process and left town. He adivsed he works better on the phone than in person anyway.
So now we still don't have a plan, no clue what it might look like when we do, we are assured there will be one by Monday morning, the debate goes on, and the rank and file American is more angry at their government than I remember in my lifetime.
It gets curiouser and curiouser.
