bailout dead

@hawkeye10,

From my understanding of the global markets and what governments are doing, they're also trying to fight some fires. The world economy is tied together today in so many ways, our cough will give other countries a cold.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The idea that anything in this speech was so partisan, so offensive in nature, as to cause someone to change their vote? That is plainly ridiculous on it's face. This isn't that partisan a speech. Her references to Bush are passing at most.

Nonsense, the speech was just a symptom of the problem, she'd decided to let the bill fail instead of letting it be seen as primarily a Democratic bill, and it was plenty partisan in tone (she sounded positively incredulous about the 700 billion figure that she had just said was their "responsibility" to pass days earlier).

The problem wasn't that she made a mean speech, but with giving up on trying to solve the impasse at all and deciding instead to pin the blame on Republicans. She could have gotten 12 votes if it was more important to her than how the parties would be perceived.

Why just blame Pelosi? Where is the blame for the Republicans, who did not deliver the votes their leaders said they would?

As you and others have pointed out, nobody wanted to own this ugly baby; and the Republicans tried to make the Dems own it today. If the Dems had passed the bill themselves, every Republican in America would have ran against that vote this Fall. Some of them would have been successful in doing so. So, f*ck em. If they don't want to vote to support the bill that their own party leader Bush and their prospective new party leader McCain put forward and supported, then it is not the Dems job to pass the bill - and especially one with most of the goodies the Dems wanted added in, stripped out.

And not to mention the fact that several provisions attempting to limit the regulation on the recipients of our cash, were revealed by the Treasury to be cosmetic in nature only. There would be no serious equity and no executive comp. limitations. See here -

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/09/mussolini-style-corporatism-in-action.html

Bush and the Bush treasury are not rational actors in this game; they are corrupt and cannot be trusted one bit. So why should the Dems, knowing this give up everything?

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

So, f*ck em.

They aren't the ones you need to be concerned about.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Quote:
So, f*ck em.

They aren't the ones you need to be concerned about.

Sure they are. I am not an alarmist as some are; our country will survive whether or not the bailout bill passes.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Define survive, One-eye...

Please?

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

Define survive, One-eye...

Please?

Survive: we will have some pain, a re-adjustment of standard of living for citizens, and a dose of humility. There will be lost jobs and a recession. I am of the opinion that this is unavoidable even with this bill.

If we can, it would be nice to move forward from this with a New New deal. We need to re-organize some stuff and there's nothing like a good crisis to provide the poke in the ass the American public need to support that.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm afraid all of y'all are gonna suck it up and sacrifice the poor...

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead's point, I believe, is that the poor have nothing left to give up. They've cut the corners, gone without, etc. Anymore cutting will draw blood.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

You sound like someone who is confident of ongoing employment, cyclo. Are you prepared to be unemployed?

1 Reply

@littlek,

littlek wrote:

Rockhead's point, I believe, is that the poor have nothing left to give up. They've cut the corners, gone without, etc. Anymore cutting will draw blood.

I think that it probably will, yes.

I read stuff like this:

Quote:

The Pesky Matter of...Democracy [Peter Robinson]

A colleague here at the Hoover Institution spoke recently with a senior, and Democratic, member of the California congressional delegation. In the last week, she said, her office had received roughly 15,000 telephone calls, telegrams, and emails. How many favored the bailout?

Ten.

From the Strongly Republican The Corner just now.

If the American public doesn't want the plan passed, maybe it's not such a bad thing that it didn't pass. I may come around to the House Republican position after all Laughing

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Yes, because this is one the first time in memory that congress is listening to middle America.

To put today's drop in perspective, it really wasn't the worst in terms of annual increases and decreases. However, even the past ups and downs have been pretty tame compared to today's eight percent drop. I think more pain is coming tomorrow.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm glad you find this situation something worthy of laughter, cyclo. Unfortunately, it isn't funny.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

You sound like someone who is confident of ongoing employment, cyclo. Are you prepared to be unemployed?

I've been getting ready for this for two years now, since I first became aware of the Subprime crisis. Haven't you?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not happy about it. But I do believe that it's inevitable and throwing loaned money from the Chinese at the problem would only delay the problems.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@littlek,

You're right; the poor have been dredging the bottom of the barrel for so long, they must feel somewhat disinterested in the banks going down the drain. Many have sent their extra money home, not into our banks.

Also, when the construction industry started to tank, many lost their jobs months ago. Even those working on renovations have been reduced to a bare minimum.

1 Reply

@JPB,

You are familiar with the Berkeley area, no?

(jerky flyover state reporting, Jack)

Cool

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

is that a yes? you're prepared to be unemployed? for how long?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why just blame Pelosi? Where is the blame for the Republicans, who did not deliver the votes their leaders said they would?

I blame them for being cowards, but Pelosi was both a coward and a loud idiot making things worse. Given that I don't see them grandstanding like that I reserve special blame for her.

Quote:

So, f*ck em. If they don't want to vote to support the bill that their own party leader Bush and their prospective new party leader McCain put forward and supported, then it is not the Dems job to pass the bill - and especially one with most of the goodies the Dems wanted added in, stripped out.

The reasons for passing the bill are not because of who proposed it. She has spent all weekend saying that it was their collective "responsibility" and "had to be done".

If it is their responsibility, and has to be done, then making political hay shouldn't override it.

Quote:

And not to mention the fact that several provisions attempting to limit the regulation on the recipients of our cash, were revealed by the Treasury to be cosmetic in nature only. There would be no serious equity and no executive comp. limitations.

The bill is not anywhere near perfect, but it's necessary. Executive comp limitations are nothing but a populist sideshow and completely irrelevant to the big picture. It plays well to want to lynch the "fat cats" but none of that would have amounted to 1/100th of a percent of the bill. It's just feel good classism.

Quote:

Bush and the Bush treasury are not rational actors in this game; they are corrupt and cannot be trusted one bit. So why should the Dems, knowing this give up everything?

Give up what? They know the bill should have passed but didn't want to be seen as responsible. What are they giving up except political capital to do the right thing? Pelosi just spent the weekend saying it was a "responsibility" and why should Republican balkers change that?

They should have taken responsibility to pass it. All of them. And the loud mouth partisans who worry more about how they are perceived than what they admit is their "responsibility" are worthy of criticism both for being gutless as well as being divisive blowhards.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

ci -- you must be joking. Disinterested? Those who are paying attention and understand the potential fallout aren't disinterested in the least.

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

is that a yes? you're prepared to be unemployed? for how long?

A year or more, and I will say that I do not anticipate unemployment even if the market does go far down.

What's with the third degree here? C'mon. I've long studied history and people throughout our entire human experience have been thrust into shitty situations. We are not immune to it. I've spent a lot of time thinking about what would happen if we were to fall into such a situation. I've never been able to understand why others don't do that. If this were the 50's, I would have been one of the guys building a bomb shelter under my house, for sure.

This doesn't mean I take joy in the situation. I don't want to see people lose their money or jobs or retirement or whatever. But I do believe that the atmosphere in which our modern businesses operate, one which has been encouraged by elements of both parties, has long been one which a problem like this is just begging to happen. A certain level of correction may be necessary, and I never pretended that I wouldn't be a part of that.

In the end, they'll pass some sort of bill, but I must say - unless there are fundamental changes in the way the so-called 'free market' works, I don't have a lot of confidence that we will be doing anything but putting it off a few years. Because sooner or later, we have a lot of loans that are coming due, this will add to them, and nobody is ever interested in talking about them....

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

The bill is not anywhere near perfect, but it's necessary. Executive comp limitations are nothing but a populist sideshow and completely irrelevant to the big picture. It plays well to want to lynch the "fat cats" but none of that would have amounted to 1/100th of a percent of the bill. It's just feel good classism.

Some of us 'lower classes' think that this part is really important. Then again, what do we know? It's important to keep the money moving, not bring back moral risk amongst the executive class! That couldn't possibly be important. Nope.

And heck, they'll just find a way to lie around it and break the law, so why even try? That'll fix these problems in the long run - no real meaningful attempt at reform of the underlying problems in our economic system, lots of throwing money at things!

Stupid lower classes with our stupid ideas.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know