NTs and the Wallstreet bailout/debates

[BlackOp]

Anyone care to chime in? I dont feel like paying 700 billion for the parasites of our species. The stock market is risk.......you gamble and lose, its your choice....not mine.

[Usehername]

I heard the $700 billion is enough to clear every single American's personal debts (car loans, mortgages, student loans, etc.).

This is ridiculous. So... the not so well off people pay to ensure that the rich stay rich? :huh:

[BlackOp]

We are now "tax slaves".

[Peguy]

We are now "tax slaves".
Well we were already "wage slaves", so might as well move up to that!

*Opps.....Im not NT*

[Usehername]

Anyone care to chime in? I dont feel like paying 700 billion for the parasites of our species. The stock market is risk.......you gamble and lose, its your choice....not mine.

Was there a reason you addressed the NTs on this topic? *pondering*

[whatever]

I don't know, but I'm with the OP on the issue- I don't see why I should have to pay for a bunch of rich fucks when I have to work hard to manage to stay afloat :dry:

[Enyo]

I don't know, but I'm with the OP on the issue- I don't see why I should have to pay for a bunch of rich fucks when I have to work hard to manage to stay afloat :dry:

Pretty much. Now, if it ends up with the government buying the debt for less than it's held at with the banks, then that's different. If there's a system where the government is actually buying part of the company and limiting golden parachutes, then that's different. If the government is charging the company interest on a loan, then that's okay, too.

I can only agree with it if it's done like a business transaction and is *profitable* with those profits going towards the national debt.

[BlackOp]

Was there a reason you addressed the NTs on this topic? *pondering*

Yes, because if "we" were actually motivated to play politics....this shit would never "come to roost". The Enron BS would have be the a motivator to nip this. Bush chose not to clamp down on oversight/regulation...he walks now and we pay. By design.

[Not_Me]

I'm generally in favor of the free market ideals, but things like this makes me wonder whether we truly have a capitalist system. We couldn't even depend on corporate leaders to act in the interest of the corporation. Instead, CEO's treat their tenure as a short term opportunity to suck wealth out of the system. They have no interest in the company's long term welfare. Their sole objectives is to meet short term goals in order to pocket their obscenely high bonuses.

They have created a situation where if we allow their companies to fail, the consequences for the rest of us would be devastating. So we pay for their recklessness and the executives get rewarded.

[DigitalMethod]

I'm generally in favor of the free market ideals, but things like this makes me wonder whether we truly have a capitalist system. We couldn't even depend on corporate leaders to act in the interest of the corporation. Instead, CEO's treat their tenure as a short term opportunity to suck wealth out of the system. They have no interest in the company's long term welfare. Their sole objectives is to meet short term goals in order to pocket their obscenely high bonuses.

They have created a situation where if we allow their companies to fail, the consequences for the rest of us would be devastating. So we pay for their recklessness and the executives get rewarded.

Yeah I never really got why rich people try to become more rich. I mean, you can only use so much to live on comfortably. Some people can want a lot of things, but still, not all the money is used by these guys to make their lives more comfortable.

It's like money just turns into game, "I got $X much, how much do you have?" C'mon how old are you guys?... :rolli:

[DigitalMethod]

Anyone care to chime in? I dont feel like paying 700 billion for the parasites of our species. The stock market is risk.......you gamble and lose, its your choice....not mine.

Hmph, all too often people go into the risk accepting the reward yet rejecting the loses.

As for me?
Pay some dude to figure out what is best for our country and it's citizens in the long run. Which I think would be helping - everyone - not just main street and not just wall street. Although probably more of it should go to main street.

(AKA: Totally clone Franklin or Jefferson to get this crap under control.)

[tblood]

Anyone care to chime in? I dont feel like paying 700 billion for the parasites of our species. The stock market is risk.......you gamble and lose, its your choice....not mine.

Hahaha! You funny! ;)

[Eric B]

I'm generally in favor of the free market ideals, but things like this makes me wonder whether we truly have a capitalist system. We couldn't even depend on corporate leaders to act in the interest of the corporation. Instead, CEO's treat their tenure as a short term opportunity to suck wealth out of the system. They have no interest in the company's long term welfare. Their sole objectives is to meet short term goals in order to pocket their obscenely high bonuses.

They have created a situation where if we allow their companies to fail, the consequences for the rest of us would be devastating. So we pay for their recklessness and the executives get rewarded.
Well, for 30 years the country was swayed: that this WAS true "free market capitalism". In contrast to that god-awful socialist system. Don't tax or get jealous of those at the top. They all worked hard, pulled up their bootstraps and earned it. and if we reward them (instead of those good-for nothing lazy poor [and more recently, illegal aliens], with the "liberals" and their "socialist" "spending programs"), then they, being as "ethical" as they are (since they honestly earned it all), will invest it back into the economy, and then we'll all prosper.

This is what people believed, swayed by the campaigns and all of the other conservative voices (Rush, etc). Now we're seeing these these fat cats are not the economic saviors we thought they were. They too are just as greedy as any socialist or other foreign enemy or domestic criminal.
But I guess now, people's recourse will just be to find yet another way to blame it on the left.

[bluemonday]

Capitalism has consumed itself.

Alternatives please.

[Didums]

A pyramid can't stand when the base is a minuscule fraction of what it is holding up. As the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the pyramid's foundation gets ever shakier, and then the point comes where the base can't handle it anymore.

How could the pyramid turn out like this in the first place? The blueprints were fundamentally flawed.

[Jack Flak]

A pyramid can't stand when the base is a minuscule fraction of what it is holding up. As the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the pyramid's foundation gets ever shakier, and then the point comes where the base can't handle it anymore.
And what's so wrong with that? You aren't happy with the differential, and it isn't as if all the super-rich are going to start LOSING money through some minor legislation, so why not speed up the process of increased "unfairness" until there's constant fighting in the streets by way of some communist revolution.

[Didums]

And what's so wrong with that? You aren't happy with the differential, and it isn't as if all the super-rich are going to start LOSING money through some minor legislation, so why not speed up the process of increased "unfairness" until there's constant fighting in the streets by way of some communist revolution.

We have to let it topple over by itself and make new blueprints to start anew. If we were to aggrevate it, the hostility after the collapse would be greater than necessary and potentially harmful, were it to just fall on its own we would understand that it was flawed to begin with, but to push it over would lead some to believe that it was the fault of some group and that it was fine to begin with, and it would get rebuilt the same way.

[the.blanket.on.top]

Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer

This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why. The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk. Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle. Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets. The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government. The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

http://www.tradersnarrative.com/fanniefreddie-bailout-socialism-for-the-rich-1834.html

[ptgatsby]

Anyone care to chime in? I dont feel like paying 700 billion for the parasites of our species. The stock market is risk.......you gamble and lose, its your choice....not mine.

Not an NT, so I won't take part.

However, I'd be curious to here the NT reasoning for including the stock market in this.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Anyone care to chime in? I dont feel like paying 700 billion for the parasites of our species. The stock market is risk.......you gamble and lose, its your choice....not mine.

It's stupid that we are in the position we are in. However at this point in time I believe we will be worse off overall without the bailout than with it. Therefore I would like to see a bailout. (Obviously we can all bicker about which details are good or bad, but overall I think it is needed.)


Not an NT, so I won't take part.

However, I'd be curious to here the NT reasoning for including the stock market in this.

Heh, the stock market is more of an ancilliary issue, but that's what the US news media tends to focus on. Basically you can give a simple hard number when looking at stocks (like Dow down 777 points) to give people a feeling of what the economy is like. Going into details about explaining mortgage backed securities would probably get worse TV ratings even though that is really what is more relevant to the situation.

[wildcat]

I don't know, but I'm with the OP on the issue- I don't see why I should have to pay for a bunch of rich fucks when I have to work hard to manage to stay afloat :dry:
The bailout would help some of the rich. Many of the poor. It is not the action; it is the consequences of the action.
Look at the whole. Not at the part. ;)

[whatever]

The bailout would help some of the rich. Many of the poor. It is not the action; it is the consequences of the action.
Look at the whole. Not at the part. ;)

I've always been a bigger fan of trickle down than trickle up economics- to come clean here.

I think that restructuring would have to go hand in hand with any bailout- obviously the system is flawed if it can manage to crash so splendidly. :)

(and memories of reading in history books about Herbert Hoover's bank bailout plans during the great depression don't help either :( )

[wildcat]

I've always been a bigger fan of trickle down than trickle up economics- to come clean here.

I think that restructuring would have to go hand in hand with any bailout- obviously the system is flawed if it can manage to crash so splendidly. :)

(and memories of reading in history books about Herbert Hoover's bank bailout plans during the great depression don't help either :( )
Sorry, I did not know or recall the thing about Hoover. :)

I agree the bailout is unjust. You give money to a reckless, irresponsible crook. :D
They say: Let the crook lose. Do not bail him out with my tax money. :smile:

If the crook falls, the innocent people he has deceived will fall, too. Only their fall will be so much worse. The crook will be back all right. ;)
He has friends in key posts.
The ordinary person does not have such friends. He will be out in the street.

There is justice (revenge), fairness and reason.
In the end, reason is fairness. Not to the crook, but to the people out there in the street. :newwink:

Fairness is not justice. It is only fairness.

[Thursday]

is Wells Fargo going down ?

[Provoker]

Anyone care to chime in? I dont feel like paying 700 billion for the parasites of our species.

I agree with you 100 percent. Main Street should not have to bail out these parasites on Wall Street. There's also a moral dilemma. If Main Street bails them out than it sets a precedent for leaches to do this sort of thing in the future. I wouldn't bail the banks out, I'd nationalize them. What happens if you don't pay your mortgage? - the government takes possession of your house right? I say the government either nationalizes them or else liquidates the ones that have gone belly up and puts that money toward education and healthcare. Middle America - many of whom are barely making ends meet - shoud not have to incur these costs. They should tax the richest top 5 percent. Either way, someone is getting fucked but middle and marginal America are far less equipped to pay for this than the wealthy class. Will, this happen? Probably not (the prolitariat always get fucked) but I have hope that through mass mobilization and protest from the working class they will prevent this legislation from going through.

[the.blanket.on.top]

http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/5676/gf.jpg

Nancy Pelosi blamed for Wall Street bailout defeat (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4852384.ece)

[BlackOp]

http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/5676/gf.jpg

Nancy Pelosi blamed for Wall Street bailout defeat (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4852384.ece)

Blaming her is like blaming flies for buzzing around a turd....

[tblood]

Blaming her is like blaming flies for buzzing around a turd....

Right on the money, BlackOp! She's so insignificant in the big picture of things!

[Thursday]

escape goat

[IlyaK1986]

About us taxpayers: It's not about good or bad. It's about bad, or really big depression worse.

If the financial system crashes, banks stop lending to each other, businesses have trouble procuring funds, our system starts to deflate, people stop spending, and the economy grinds to a halt, meaning unemployment skyrockets and in general, people's lives get a heck of a lot worse.

The problem created by the parasites at the top WILL not just trickle, but crash down onto the rest of us if the Paulson Plan/Invest in America plan/or "the bailout" as everyone likes to call it doesn't go through.

Not to mention that Dick Fuld, Stan O'Neal, and Jimmy Cayne of Lehman, Merrill, and Bear are already out of here.

[Eldanen]

About us taxpayers: It's not about good or bad. It's about bad, or really big depression worse.

If the financial system crashes, banks stop lending to each other, businesses have trouble procuring funds, our system starts to deflate, people stop spending, and the economy grinds to a halt, meaning unemployment skyrockets and in general, people's lives get a heck of a lot worse.

The problem created by the parasites at the top WILL not just trickle, but crash down onto the rest of us if the Paulson Plan/Invest in America plan/or "the bailout" as everyone likes to call it doesn't go through.

Not to mention that Dick Fuld, Stan O'Neal, and Jimmy Cayne of Lehman, Merrill, and Bear are already out of here.


The financial system is going to crash. The only question is when and how big? If we allow the economy to crash now, while we still have some hope, we can make a new system, instead of trying to medicate one that's already dead and on life support. The $700 billion bailout is just prolonging the inevitable. We can't bail these people out over and over again. If we bail them out now, it's going to fail later and that may spell the collapse of the dollar system. Or, at least, that's what Ron Paul said, and he's pretty knowledgeable and logical, so I think I agree with him. (No, not an appeal to authority. I'm saying that his logic agrees with mine.)

[tblood]

The financial system is going to crash. The only question is when and how big? If we allow the economy to crash now, while we still have some hope, we can make a new system, instead of trying to medicate one that's already dead and on life support. The $700 billion bailout is just prolonging the inevitable. [...]



The thing is that it may prolong its life for too many years..

[Eldanen]

The thing is that it may prolong its life for too many years..

It's kinda like putting a cripple on life support. It's there, but it can't do very much....