bailout dead

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I do not anticipate unemployment even if the market does go far down

That's what I thought.

The third degree is because you seem to think this situation is funny and I don't.

Yes, we have to do something about the general lifestyle and daily living habits of the middle 50-75% of the country. We cannot continue to survive as a debtor nation. But the impact on those who are already underemployed or unemployed is nothing to laugh about.

2 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Quote:
I do not anticipate unemployment even if the market does go far down

That's what I thought.

The third degree is because you seem to think this situation is funny and I don't.

Yes, we have to do something about the general lifestyle and daily living habits of the middle 50-75% of the country. We cannot continue to survive as a debtor nation. But the impact on those who are already underemployed or unemployed is nothing to laugh about.

What would you recommend instead? And what effect would that emotion have upon either myself or the situation?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@JPB,

Those of us who have been in their shoes knows the pain.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I have no knowledge of your situation, cyclo. You say you are prepared and have been preparing for two years. Good for you to be in a position to do that.

I do think that the idiots we have representing us in Washington will put a bill together that will pass. I also believe that the timing of this vote so close to election day is integral to the reason it failed -- politics. You're a fan of politics whereas I'm most certainly not. The games that pelosi played today were just that - political gamesmanship. She gets to be employed at least until November and will do what she needs to do to see a December paycheck, as will the rest of them. I'm not a fan of the system. Particularly when folks on the edge are trying to figure out how to eat. Show me where that's funny.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Why just blame Pelosi?

Cyclo, in all honesty, I think Pelosi bears a big part of the blame for what happened today. Her partisan speech had no place in the proceedings today. (Even if I might agree with much of what she said.)

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

I have no knowledge of your situation, cyclo. You say you are prepared and have been preparing for two years. Good for you to be in a position to do that.

I do think that the idiots we have representing us in Washington will put a bill together that will pass. I also believe that the timing of this vote so close to election day is integral to the reason it failed -- politics. You're a fan of politics whereas I'm most certainly not. The games that pelosi played today were just that - political gamesmanship. She gets to be employed at least until November and will do what she needs to do to see a December paycheck, as will the rest of them. I'm not a fan of the system. Particularly when folks on the edge are trying to figure out how to eat. Show me where that's funny.

Yaknow, last week, when Grandpa John decided that he was far enough behind in the polls, that he had to go pull a stunt and go to Washington and 'fix things up' - upon which the negotiations crashed down and the bill got pushed back - I didn't see you posting about what an ass he was for doing it. That was political gamesmanship of the highest caliber. Pelosi was covering her ass like all politicians do - you think that the bill is popular in her district? I can't believe how idiotic this concept is, that Pelosi's speech had anything to do with anyone's vote at all. It is an excuse ginned up by the Republicans in Congress b/c they wanted to hang it around the Dems' kneck and nothing more.

And Bush's initial plan was asinine. Worse, it was sold very poorly. They tried to use fear to push through a plan with no oversight. I agree, election politics have soured the bill and make it difficult to move forward. But what else do we expect? And is the situation as bad as they say, or...

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/29/celebrating-the-bailout-bill-s-failure-and-looking-ahead.aspx

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Well, cyclo, I don't spend my energies here railing against John or anyone else who isn't here to read my words. I consider it a waste of keystrokes. You didn't see me here hurraying or railing against anyone else's words who isn't here either. Not my thing. I took exception to your laughing at this situation and called you out on it. I don't find it funny. John isn't here laughing. You are. It's not funny.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I posted 'bout the old guy, One eye.

Both sides are the problem, and if you ain't helpin fix it, then yer just still f*ckin' it for fun.

What are you doing?

(keep ignoring me is my bet, but I'm not new, now am I...)

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Some of us 'lower classes' think that this part is really important.

But is it important? Or is it a dangerous bit of populism that is divisive and does nothing to contribute to a solution?

Quote:

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.

Wanting to punish the executives that let their companies get into this mess is reasonable. It ignores that everyone below them from the rest of the employees to the home owners are all responsible as well but that's fine. After all, the buck stops there.

But it's just isn't feasible Cyclo. To be retributive it would have to have been retroactive, and there's no legal basis to make it retroactive except to just let the system fail. Letting the system fail punishes the world, to try to punish a couple of executives and it wouldn't be much punishment anyway because they all have the liquidity to survive it.

It's just a stupid windmill to tilt at and hold the economy hostage over Cyclo.

Quote:

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!

The underlying problem is not executive compensation structures Cyclo. Laughing

Quote:

Stupid lower classes with our stupid ideas.

Not all the lower classes are that stupid and stupid classism isn't just for the lower classes. Stupid classism is stupid whether it is from the rich or the poor. When I was dirt poor I didn't exhibit this senseless classism and I didn't try to stick it to the rich. I didn't begrudge them their success. If I one day become as rich as I'd like to I won't indulge in it either.

There is such a thing as stupid classism, and you can't don the mantle of all legitimate class concerns to avoid criticism of it. The focus on executive pay is a dangerous distraction. It's satisfying to rich and poor alike to pretend that the handful of executives did all of this but that's simply not true. It's nice to have the fall guys and all but every class participated in this mess.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

I posted 'bout the old guy, One eye.

Both sides are the problem, and if you ain't helpin fix it, then yer just still f*ckin' it for fun.

What are you doing?

Planning for the best on my end, the only end which I have any control over anything at all, really.

What am I supposed to do about it? I think the solution for the problem is going to be painful no matter what I/we do. It's not like passing this bill would have solved anything at all. It would have protected the richest yet again and there would have been no meaningful changes in the way we do business. Am I supposed to be pulling for this?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote :

Quote:

And don't forget Afghanistan! Talk of more funds & troops needed there, too

yes , and afghanistan concerns many of us in canada too !
people are killed and maimed , money is poured into a sinkhole while the corruption in afghanistan increases ... ...
i feel very sorry for the people of afghanistan that want to live i peace , but i don't think what the western nations are doing over there right now will help them to achieve peace .
imo the western nations cannot succeed in afghanistan without the help of the asian nations . if countries such as pakistan , india , china and japan show little or no interest in what's going on there , i don't see that anything will change for the better .
hbg

(should pick up my afghanistan thread again , but don't think there is much interest in the topic)

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yaknow, last week, when Grandpa John decided that he was far enough behind in the polls, that he had to go pull a stunt and go to Washington and 'fix things up' - upon which the negotiations crashed down and the bill got pushed back - I didn't see you posting about what an ass he was for doing it.

"He did it too" is not in any way relevant to whether Pelosi deserves criticism.

And McCain's stupid stunts didn't cause the negotiations to fail, which you seem to be trying to imply.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's not like passing this bill would have solved anything at all. It would have protected the richest yet again and there would have been no meaningful changes in the way we do business.

And this is talking out of your ass Cyclo. Get the credit system working again and the people who just got fired (in every business I am involved in there are layoffs right and left) can have their jobs again. That is a very meaningful difference to the way we do business and it hits the small guy the hardest.

This is what I mean with stupid classism. You fixate on the rich and ignore that this impacts the poor the most. They are losing their jobs and houses and small businesses because of the lack of liquidity in the market and you are fixating on a handful of executives and on political gamesmanship.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

But it's just isn't feasible Cyclo. To be retributive it would have to have been retroactive, and there's no legal basis to make it retroactive except to just let the system fail.

Well, we cannot create legislation to make it retroactive? This is optional, after all; if businesses don't want to participate, nobody is forcing them.

How is it 'divisive' to limit executive compensation? I doubt you would find an issue which polled better in America. Unless you believe it would divide the executives of the financial system from the rest of us? I'm not against that.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yaknow, last week, when Grandpa John decided that he was far enough behind in the polls, that he had to go pull a stunt and go to Washington and 'fix things up' - upon which the negotiations crashed down and the bill got pushed back - I didn't see you posting about what an ass he was for doing it.

"He did it too" is not in any way relevant to whether Pelosi deserves criticism.

And McCain's stupid stunts didn't cause the negotiations to fail, which you seem to be trying to imply.

But what, Pelosi's speech did? Pull the other one! One ended in a failed meeting, where an agreed upon bill was then turned down, McCain left unexpectedly, and there certainly was no photo op afterwards like planned. The other had some mildly harsh words for the Bush administration, which then caused some Republicans to what, get all miffed and vote against the future of our nation in a little hissy fit?

Not even close, man

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

It is just scary that I see this and you don't.

(you should ask for a refund on some of your edumacation, I think...)

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's not like passing this bill would have solved anything at all. It would have protected the richest yet again and there would have been no meaningful changes in the way we do business.

And this is talking out of your ass Cyclo. Get the credit system working again and the people who just got fired (in every business I am involved in there are layoffs right and left) can have their jobs again. That is a very meaningful difference to the way we do business and it hits the small guy the hardest.

This is what I mean with stupid classism. You fixate on the rich and ignore that this impacts the poor the most. They are losing their jobs and houses and small businesses because of the lack of liquidity in the market and you are fixating on a handful of executives and on political gamesmanship.

I'm sorry, I just believe that the companies in question didn't innocently make a mistake, and whoops, we just have too many over-leveraged securities hanging about, how embarrassing, and now can we have your public money please?

Without some sort of action taken against those at the top, they'll just come with their hats in hand again here in a few years, and are we going to pay them next time too?

There are several ideas for getting the system working again, or even scaled-back parts of the Paulson plan which would have worked just as well. The link I showed you earlier gave the lie to much of what the plan said it was going to do, and that's not acceptable to me.

I understand you have a different opinion about the necessity of enacting change at the top, and that's okay with me - I just feel differently about the importance of it then you do.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, we cannot create legislation to make it retroactive?

Not meaningfully no.

Quote:

This is optional, after all; if businesses don't want to participate, nobody is forcing them.

I'm not a fan of golden parachutes, but one of the big reasons they exist is so that the guys at the top don't make decisions that are bad for the company out of personal concerns.

Now you are saying that they should have to decide whether or not to accept the personal losses in order to accept the changes that everyone needs them to?

That's just stupid and that's why trying so hard to crucify them is a dangerous distraction.

Quote:

How is it 'divisive' to limit executive compensation?

It's unconstitutional. That's how divisive. The right to private contracts was established before the bill of rights.

Quote:

I doubt you would find an issue which polled better in America. Unless you believe it would divide the executives of the financial system from the rest of us? I'm not against that.

No, if you just think it through you'd realize we'd all lose. Their private compensation is none of your business. Just as your own compensation is not any of mine.

This is just plain idiocy without thinking it through. Now you want to change the constitution, and interfere with all of our rights to private contracts just to stick it to them?

Even the teeming millions aren't that stupid when they realize the consequences of that irrational classism. If you eliminate this right to private contracts we all lose a great deal.

I don't want the public writing laws to limit my compensation, so I don't advocate laws to limit that of others private individuals. You can't take away their rights without eroding all of ours.

3 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

It is just scary that I see this and you don't.

(you should ask for a refund on some of your edumacation, I think...)

See what?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

"Going very much against the media meme that the current financial crisis is all George W. Bush and the Republicans' fault, Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC's Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"

Even Bill Clinton recognized part of the problem.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know