WCOM -- Withold Comments, Only Monitor

I haven't kept up with the issue as much as I would have liked, but from what I have heard from various news outlets the 700billon will ultimately be used to buy up all the dangerous mortages that are not being taken up by the market so that the companies can stay afloat.

Using the public's money to buy risky investments that the public is not buying on its own? No thanks.

Not bailing them out might be consequential in the short run, but I believe that we should let the market work itself out in this case, if at least to send a message against corrupt practioners that believe they can do whatever the fuck they want and have the government bail them out.

Also, the 700billion may kill the dollar http://buzzflash.com/articles/lindorff/147

Once again, No thank you.

The dollar is already really shit. I get 1$ for about 5 Norwegian Kroners, that's really freaking cheap considering it used to be 8-9 Norwegian Kroners per dollar. I don't really care though, I mean, I get everything for like half the price it costs in Norway right now so I'm fairy happy even if you kill the dollar on not. It's still a win win situation for countries that purchase stuff made in the US.

The issue here is about why this situation came about in the first place. Since Reagan, we have continued to deregulate and deregulate these industries. This has allowed them to go hog wild and do whatever they want. We took a group of people (the people at the tops of these companies) whose entire lives are based around figuring out ways to manipulate money to make more money... and took away their oversight. What did everyone think was going to happen eventually?

The ironic part of this entire situation is that the deregulation was done in the name of "keeping government out of people's wallets" but now the government has to dip into EVERYONE'S wallet to fix the problem. They kept saying that regulations and oversight were dragging these companies down. Well it appears that, at least to some extent, the opposite is true.

I'm not against bailing these companies out. What I am against is doing it without accepting what caused the problem (deregulation) and proceeding to do nothing to fix the problem. Just doing the bailout and moving on is treating the symptom, not the disease, and the disease is unregulated capitalism.

Yes, you heard me, the disease is CAPITALISM.

Capitalism is economic anarchy where the strong (rich) get stronger (richer) and the weak (poor) get weaker (poorer). It is an UNDEMOCRATIC system, which laughs in the face of equality and true freedom.

The flip side is that it is simply more efficient than any other system anyone has really come up with. Therefore, the government (i.e. the people, because the government's purpose is to exert our will) is supposed to regulate and oversee these industries, and make sure that the free market doesn't fall apart under it's own glut, which is what is happening RIGHT NOW. With the government evening the playing field and keeping monopolies, oligopolies, and necessarily massive industries in check, the free market is an efficient, if horribly flawed, system. It's a balance, a balance which has fallen apart in the last 25 years.

This bailout, to an extent, is necessary to the well-being of our economy, but we need to treat the real problem and get back to doing the regulation and oversight.

Get your war on: Bailout?!

USA = pwnt

Ninespine, you're wasting your life not posting on this forum.

Well the whole thing got rejected by the House today, so this topic is pretty much bunk.

i r happy

You may not be happy if your bank, investments, or insurer goes under, leaving you without.

Shouldn't that happening make a free-market fan like you cream your jeans?

So how did the debate go down?

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-fD78zyvI&feature=PlayList&p=C3E2B0388B2803B6&index=0&playnext=1

It's Corporatism that is fucking America, not the free-market. The free-market should allow these companies to go bankrupt and sort itself out. We've quick-patched too many bursting bubbles and now we've got one hell of a bubble that's exploding. The bailouts are fucking retarded.

I'm a strong Ron Paul advocate. I think the Fed should be shut down and the government, not the Fed which is outside the government but derives its authority from its appointment by the government, should take control of our money again. I think anything is better than flooding the market with made-up money and destroying the dollar.

Ron Paul is not an economist and Ron Paul has a very poor understanding of the economy. The Fed is the most effective system. There is no more effective alternative. I'm not saying the Fed is flawless, not by a longshot, but all other proposed systems are worse. backed currency is prone to recessions. If you honestly think the Fed is as simple as "They makez made up moneyz and give it out haha lolz noobz!", you need to read a book.

The reason this bubble is bursting is because of three different things:

1. This is an industry that doesn't produce anything except money. It has no REAL production values.
2. We have allowed this market to become free-er and free-er. By removing the oversight and the restrictions, these guys knew they could do whatever they wanted without impunity.
3. Out of control government spending.

Letting this bubble just burst will tank our economy, and punish the lower level people working for these companies and the people with money invested in them, not the people who fucked up. The people who fucked up will walk away still filthy rich.

Ron Paul is a fucking wingnut, who wants to take America (the least self sufficient country in the first world) and try to shut our doors and make us isolationists. Ron Paul is a supporter of COMPLETELY unrestricted capitalism. That is, he would disband every consumer protection agency in the government, like the FDA. He would shut down every social program that the Federal government runs, like social security, college grants, and college loans. He would take off the few restrictions left on wall street and let them go hog wild all over again.

The guy is a fucking lunatic.

Copypasta'd from NineSpine:Shouldn't that happening make a free-market fan like you cream your jeans?

Normally I would say let the companies fail, and allow others to grow in their place, but this is system-wide failure. Additionally its not as if the Gov't is handing these companies free money and letting them run wild with it, they are regulated heavily for the time being which I think is a good idea. For example AIG was "bailed-out" by the Fed but in reality the company is destroyed and failed. The top leadership of the company has been replaced, the Fed has 80 of the voting power(80% of AIG equity), and the entire company is being restructed. The only thing about AIG that is really being saved is its brand-name and employees.

Also guys lets get this dollar-story straight. The 700 billion spending package, although under tradtional models would lower the PP(Purchasing Power) of the dollar by increasing the dollar supply, would in this case it would probably help the value of the dollar increase.
Why? Consumer/Producer/Foreign confidence in the economy. When confidence in the economy, consumers spend more and producers produce more, which helps the economy become stronger and in turn increases confidence. This cycle also works in reverse, which is what is happening now and is partially to blame for the current situation. For example I recently got a 14k refund on my college tution from the US Army, normally I would invest it but because the economy is so choatic right now, I'm not. So in my own little way I'm contributing to the current crisis, but I'm not confident enough to invest now.
Foreign confidence plays into this as well because many nations that do not have strong international currencies, such as all of South America, Africa, large parts of Asia, etc hold reserves in their Central Banks in normally a combination of US dollars, Euros, Yen and UK Pounds. So its like Ft. Knox, except instead of gold they hold dollars and strong currencies in reserves in case their own currency were to fail the government could continue to operate by selling off its foreign currency. Because of the current crisis many countries have reduced their reserves of dollars and exchanged them for other currencies, such as the Euro. This increases the supply of US dollars in international markets, thus lowering its value. Why? Because of the current economic crisis, and overspending, the US dollar has lost some of its purchasing power. So if you held 10 US dollars in reserve and you believed the exchange rate between US dollars and Euros would drop from .7(1 dollar buying .7 euros) to .6(1 dollar buying .6 euros) tomorrow, why wouldn't you exchange your dollars for Euros? If you don't then you lose purchasing power on your overall reserves, and thats all money is good for, purchasing. In a way you are quite literally going to lose money if you don't switch, if you had 10 US dollars you would lose 1 euro in value if the exchange dropped by .1, if you had 10 billion dollars you would lose 1 billion euros in value.
(10x.7)-(10x.6)=1
So if the 700 billion bailout, of whatever amount it ends up being now, helps our economy start growing again than in the short run the dollar will lose value, but consumer and producer confidence will increase, people will spend more and producers will produce more, the economy will continue to grow and as the economy grows foriegn countries will lower or stop selling dollars into international markets and hang onto them as reserves.
You could think of it like a skateboarder who has to go down a ramp to get up. Even though its his goal to go as high as possible, he has to be willing to go down first before going up.

This is the largest number I think I've ever heard seriously mentioned. I can't even fathom this much money.

Wiseone: So since a single-payer health program will unquestionably boost the economy in the exact ways we are talking about, you are for it now, right?

The additional spending undertaken to create a health program could boost the economy, yes. Although it wouldn't help the financial industry or people's current financial problems.

Copypasta'd from R.A.T. Army:This is the largest number I think I've ever heard seriously mentioned. I can't even fathom this much money.

Try the $9.8 trillion in U.S. national debt.


From Time Magazine:

700 Billion can:

Give every person in the U.S. $2300

Fully fund Defense, Treasury, Education, State, Veterans Affairs, and Interior departments next year, as well as NASA.

Buy gasoline for every car in the U.S. for 16 months.

Buy every NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball team and build each one a new stadium - and pay your players $191 million apiece for a year.

Create the 17th largest economy in the world - roughly equal to that of the Netherlands.

Pay off 7% of the $9.8 trillion U.S national debt.

Copypasta'd from Oh-Wiseone:The additional spending undertaken to create a health program could boost the economy, yes. Although it wouldn't help the financial industry or people's current financial problems.

Not having to pay for healthcare wouldn't help people financially? Are you high?

maybe if you guys weren't waging a perpetual jihad against the infidels, you wouldn't be in this mess. did i use that comma right? i suck grammar at.

Shut yet trap you stankin terrorist.

Copypasta'd from NineSpine:

Copypasta'd from Oh-Wiseone:The additional spending undertaken to create a health program could boost the economy, yes. Although it wouldn't help the financial industry or people's current financial problems.

Not having to pay for healthcare wouldn't help people financially? Are you high?

Except that people do pay for healthcare through taxes, 700 billion wouldn't run it forever. If a healthcare program was established, it would have to come along with a tax.
Also it wouldn't help the financial industry at all, and the worse off the financial industry gets then the worse off people get.

I think you missed the point. The question is what else we could do with the $700B. Saying "Well we need a tax to pay for healthcare" misses the point.

And if you think the average middle class family isn't paying absurd premiums and copays, you are ignorant. And if you think that a single, SINGLE serious illness wouldn't put most middle class families straight into the poorhouse and obliterate their life savings, you are even more ignorant.

Regardless of what you are me think of the idea of a healthcare system, we are talking about the financial crisis and how the government should react it. It is very true that the current 700 billion being debated over could be used for all sorts of things, the government could buy everyone a life time supply of pudding and thus turn the pudding industry into a commerical giant and stimulate the economy though trickle-down economics as the pudding industry buys up everything else for cheap. But if you want to preach about healthcare, this isn't the right topic.
So, what do you think the government should do, if anything, to try and deal with the current financial crisis and why?
If you think the government should stimulate the economy by creating a national healthcare system, that is certainly possible. But you have to accept that by not helping the financial industry this current crisis will get much worse and the financial industry, and anyone who using it(ie, everyone) will be hurt by it.
When Lehman Brothers went under the cost of debt insurance increased by several precentage because Lehman Brothers was a major international insurer. AIG is another major international insurer, in fact its the biggest and its the 18th largest company in the world. Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy on Friday and over the weekend the debt insurance rate increased several precent, meaning that AIG suddenly over the course of a weekend found itself with an additional 14 billion in costs to pay its debt insurers(which are banks or other companies also running out of cash), or it would lose its debt insurance. This added cost was too much for AIG and it had to recieve a loan from the Fed to stay in operation.
This affects the "average guy" because the average guy is a customer of AIG or one of its companies, and if AIG goes bankrupt then it doesn't matter if that guy has auto, life, health, house, or any kind of insurance policy with AIG because even if he makes a claim the company litterally has no money to pay him.

The Wall Street Journal reported in an article as an example that after Lehman's failure the cost of insuring 10 million in debt for 5 years jumped from 152000 to 195000. Debt insurance works the same way as any other insurance, by the way, you pay from time to time and can make claims to a bigger pot of money created from other insurance payers. So debt insurance works like this, you pay from time to time, if you cant pay your debts you can file a claim with your debt insurer to pay your debt for you. Remember that AIG is the 18th largest company in the world, they had a lot more debt that 10 million.
So now that AIG is unable to pay for debt insurance, when AIG's debt collectors come knocking the company has 5 options:
1) Sell assets such as office buildings (an office tower in New York is worth a lot)
2) Fire employees, if you dont have to pay their wages then you save money
3) Sell ownership in itself, which drives stock prices down, or sell ownership either partially or completly in other companies AIG might now(which its doing now)
4) Sell its insurance policies to other insurers
5) Raise its "prices" where-ever possible, by "prices" I mean things like adjustable rates on insurance or prices of whatever the other companies AIG owns produce.

Normally a company will exhaust options 1-3 before 4 or 5 doing option 4, because option 4 doesn't produce money for the buyer right away. Basically its selling the rights to collect on a mortage or insurance of AIGs consumers, these are normally sold at far below the total value of what will eventually be paid by the insuree because the seller is desperate.
Option 5 is avoided because the financial industry is very elastic and if one company raises these prices their consumers will move to other companies, however if a company faces option 5 or total failure they have no choice.
In normal economic models this would be the end of story, because another company will pick up the failing companies insurance polices and will have enough equity to see the polices and mortgages to full collection. However in this case nearly every company in the system is on the brink of collaspe and so all are doing option 5, which affects the average guy. By stopping the crisis we stop companies from raising prices to stay afloat and return to a normal economic model.
On a final note I should also add that the money gained from options 1 and 3 isn't very much when considering what things being sold would normally be worth. Because of the crisis everyone is looking to consolidate, not expand, so things falling under options 1 and 3 must be sold very cheaply otherwise there will be no buyers.

The point here isn't whether health care would fix this solution. The point here is that our economy and people have lots of problems, amongst them an educational system in the shitter and skyrocketing prices of health insurance. Why is it that we can only use government money to fix the problems that hurt rich people? Yes, I know that the fact that these companies are falling apart adversely effects the average American, but we have lots of problems that we could fix in far less risky ways for far cheaper. The difference? Those problems don't hurt rich people. Why are you suddenly for socialism (and that is what this is, complete and total socialism)? You rail against ideas like nationalized healthcare, which would easily save thousands and thousands of children, let alone adults, from dieing... but wait... those are just worthless poor and middle class people. Who needs em?

If big government bailouts are good for fatcats on wallstreet who CREATED THE ENTIRE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE, why aren't they good enough for me? Why the fuck did I pay out the ass for college, working my ass off, while the whole time these guys were PURPOSEFULLY AND MALICIOUSLY tearing apart the system and profiting from it? Now I am in debt and we are going to line their pockets and take all their problems with us? Why are there sick people all over this country, dieing of preventable illnesses (and how about those veterans with PTSD that can't get treatment) and we are talking about throwing $700B at this problem?

There is one word for that: Bullshit.

My problem isn't with spending the money on the bailout, because I see (in a twisted way) it's necessity. My problem is with the double standard that it represents and my problem is with the fact that people are actually FIGHTING AGAINST fixing the problems that caused this in the first place.

This situation is a dismal failure of the free market. It shows a glaring hole in capitalism. This needs to be addressed, and this bailout should come with the provisions to do so. For decades, republicans (and some democrats, notably Clinton) have been taking apart the oversight and restrictions on this industry, and this mess is the result. After doing all that (in the name of FREE MARKET, CAPITALIST principles) they want to fix the problem with SOCIALISM.

That is bitter, bitter irony.

Let me dismantle this logic:

Government involvement with these industries is bad.
We remove all the oversight and regulations.
Industry falls apart at the seems under the glut of it's own greed.
Use massive amounts of taxpayer money so the government can fix the problem.

Now what? Rinse and repeat? Fuck that. If balls-out socialism can fix the problem, then what the hell was so evil and wrong about the oversight and regulation that was PREVENTING the problem?

Once again: bullshit.

I completly agree you, the "fatcats" should not gain from this and new regulations should be created after figuring out exactly how this whole situation happened, such as required reserves(if you know what those are). You are assuming I don't. Please don't assume my positions on things, I hardly ever do with you and when I do assume I explain my assumption and ask you to correct it if I'm wrong.
You are correct when you say that the solution is a socialist in nature, and I'm completly aware that I'm advocating it. However, I'm advocating a temporary socialist solution, nothing permenant like Europe. The idea is for the government to take control until these companies can be set on the straight and narrow again, and then let them go. So while AIG may now for all pratical purposes be a nationalized firm, I'm only advocating that in the short term.
Lastly remember that another reason why I support it and why its not true socialism is because the government is out for profit. In normal socialist models government owned firms are not seeking profit but are seeking to best serve their customers(ie the people). In this case the government is going into this with the goal of seeing profit when the whole situation is over with. The Federal Reserve was able to get ownership of 80% of AIG for only 85 billion because AIG common stock was being sold for around 4 dollars a share at that time, as opposed to a month ago where it was trading around 20 dollars a share. IF the Fed's loan of 85 billion allows AIG to stay afloat and reorganize itself, then AIG will start to make profits again, when AIG makes profits its share price will increase, once the Fed is confident that AIG is back on its feet it will slowly begin to sell off its ownership at a price greater than 4 dollars a share. That is profit for the government.

If you had read the bill for the 700 billion bailout you would know that any firm that recieves money from this plan is hardly getting a "get out of jail free card." A few examples include the simple fact that firms like AIG have seen their share price drop from the 70s down to 4. Another one is a provision in the law that states that any firm that decides to take part in this plan will be forbidden from granting any retirement or pension plan worth more than 500,000 dollars. No golden parachute there. Lastly these firms are going to repay these loans by restructuring themselves, and by that I mean they are going to be selling themselves and their subsidaries off like hotcakes. In 10 years AIG will be a shell of its former self, hardly the 18th largest company in the world. It will be like comparing anthills to mountains.

1. Saying that the goal of Socialism doesn't involve profit is extremely wrong. In any decent model of Socialism, government controlled industries such as this are supposed to generate profit in order to lower or eliminate taxes. Regardless, this buyout is way too unstable for the hope of profitability to be something we rely on.

2. The actual people that caused these problems are going to walk away with money. The only thing that's going to suffer is actual company names, not individuals. At the end of the day, the people that caused this mess are walking away with a shit-ton of money that they made CAUSING this crisis, and the Republicans are actively seeking to LITERALLY hand them tens of millions of dollars as part of the deal. The aftermath and the loss in profitability of these companies and related firms is irrelevant. It's like fining someone one-thousand dollars for stealing ten-thousand and letting them keep the rest. If the Republicans get their way, it's more like someone stealing ten-thousand, getting fined one-thousand, and then the government gives them five-thousand for cooperating.

3. The question still remains: Why can the government dump money of this magnitude into Wall Street, but then you scoff at government programs that help everyone else. Why is it OK to throw money at massively rich interests, but horrible to tax the rich at the same rate as the middle class (the rich pay SIGNIFICANTLY lower taxes than the middle class)? Why is it OK to do this, but absolutely terrible for the government to provide health insurance (which is a huge economic booster).

On what grounds do you say that there is no hope for profit in this action by the government? You don't even understand economics or the crisis, or its causes or how it affects every American rich, poor or somewhere in between.
You're right though when you say that the people who caused these problems are going to get money, they all have their previously acquired wealth and I wouldn't doubt if some of the people who caused the problems hold onto their stocks and equity and make money later in the future. But thats tough, you have to realize that this 700 billion bailout is completly optional, the government is not going to force any company to accept money. If the plan does not include some sort of cushion for the company's leaders they aren't going to go along with the plan, so even if the deal gets approved by the House it wouldn't matter.
Secondly, no one is "litterally" handing people tens of millions of dollars, you actually need to READ THE BILL to know what you're talking about. Or go to a news-stand and buy yourself a copy of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Financial Times and actually read up on the problem and the details of the bailout, BEFORE you make all these crazy statements which cannot in anyway be seen as true in the smallest detail.
Lastly, this bailout helps everyone, everyone everyone everyone. ANY American with ANY kind of debt will benift from this dealing going through, ANY American living off their savings in retirement will benift from this deal. Any American who wants a loan from a bank to buy a house, or buy a car, or go to college, or to do ANYTHING with will benift from this deal.
And I'll say it again: YES, IT IS TRUE, that creating a healthcare program will be a big economic boost if we spend 700 billion on that instead of on the financial industry. THE PROBLEM IS, that in doing so the finanical industry will still be suffering and the industry's debt and every American with debt, or who wants to get a loan, will continue to suffer from this crisis.

I didn't say we should spend THIS $700B on healthcare. Please respond to my actual point, which I made very clear: if we can spend money on this crisis, why not that crisis?

Also, I never said there was no hope to make money. Try arguing against what I said.

Perhaps a little less condescension and a little more listening would help you. I didn't say the current bill said anything about giving tens of millions to the people that caused the problem. I said that is what Republicans want 9well, a fair share of them). Why do they want to do this? Well, because of what you just said, when you blatantly contradicted yourself:

"If the plan does not include some sort of cushion for the company's leaders they aren't going to go along with the plan, so even if the deal gets approved by the House it wouldn't matter."

These people won't play ball unless they get paid enormous sums of money to do so.

Let me ask you a question though. If the government can take my money and use it to do this, why can't it force these people so sell to them? Because they are rich, and I'm not, that's why. God forbid the government steps on Wall Street's toes. The government can take $700B on taxpayer money to do this, but they can't pass a resolution forcing the companies to sell to them? Please.

Ok you didn't specifically say that there was no hope for profit but your statement that "Regardless, this buyout is way too unstable for the hope of profitability to be something we rely on." Sounded pretty bleak. Pardon me though.
The government could pass a law forcing these firms to sell their assests, and at any price for that matter. But that would clearly be illegal and it would be challenged in court, and the whole time the crisis would get worse and worse while the courts decided on the issue and the appeals that would surely follow. This kind of crisis requires action as fast as possible, its not really to anyone's benift to drag it through the courts. The idea is to work with Wall Street, not try and dominate it.
And the government can spend money to try and resolve this crisis the same way it can try and spend money on the "healthcare crisis" but its not, what do you want me to say?
Also its a fact that most of the leadership of these companies won't want to go along with the plan if they can't get out of it in an acceptable means to them. And its a fact that if they don't go along with the plan that its pointless regardless if it passes. What is not a known fact is that if the Republicans, or anyone, actually want to give the "fat cats" anything. I personally don't want them to have any sort of package or any benift when this thing ends, but its really just a fact of life that to get them to coperate with the deal they'll have to get something. And lastly remember that any benfits package towards any employee of a firm who uses this gov't plan is limited to 500,000 dollars in value, a far cry from "tens of millions." And I know that 500,000 seems like a lot, but it isn't really that much for the gov't or for these executives if you look at previous deals some of them have got, which I'm sure you have. AND Wall Street Firms have expressed support for this bill, meaning their leadership is willing to accept 500,000 if they so choose to take it, but personally I doubt many company leadership will recieve that money as they need all the capital they can get to stay in business.

Finally I want to stop hearing about how the rich have more than the poor, thats really what defines wealth and poverty is it not? This is a capitalist world and a capitalist country we live in and its just a fact of life that people with money are going to get things that people without money aren't. Ya it sucks, especially when it comes to things like justice and how rich can hire teams of lawyers to argue anything, but thats just life and there's nothing you can do about it.
Also don't lump me in with the rich you hate so much, I get about 9k a year to live on. And yes I do get things like healthcare and college paid for, but I'm hardly getting that for free. Instead of paying with money for those things I'm literally paying with years of my life and taking a dangerous job, you've seen the causality numbers(both WIA and KIA). Ask yourself where you are going to be in 2 years, phsyically in the world, I'm guessing your answer isn't going to be Iraq or Afghanistan like mine is.

1. In two years I could be somewhere in that region. It's a distinct possibility. And honestly, what does it matter what you are giving in exchange for healthcare? I can point you to half a dozen parents with sick kids who would give their lives in a heartbeat to save them. That doesn't prove any point. I don't lump you in with the rich, I lump you in with the ignorant masses that cry and whine about government intervention until Republicans want to do it. All you talk about is government inefficiency, then you deem them good enough to sign your life over to and start lecturing other people on why the rich deserve government handouts for fucking everything up. It's the very definition of hypocrite.

2. Yes, they want to give $500K to the leadership, but if you have been keeping up, you would see that leadership crying that $500K isn't enough money (I suppose they need enough to buy three or four homes, not just one or two, in exchange for driving a massive portion of our economy into the toilet) and many Republicans have been marching right in lockstep with that notion.

3. This is a capitalist country only in some respects. It's capitalism for the poor and the middle class, socialism for the rich. The rich pay the lowest percentage of taxes in this country, even before you factor in the absurd loopholes. Warren Buffet pays 17% of his income in taxes. That's a fucking joke. It's absurd. Our government throws bailouts, handouts, and no-bid contracts to all their rich friends while the poor and middle class suffer. This is an obscene system that skews the odds in favor of the rich and against everyone else.

If you support capitalism so much, then why do you always go for handing money to the rich instead of the middle class? Give the middle class money and it invigorates the economy because they SPEND it on companies which (by the laws of capitalism) have earned it. Give the rich money and half of it goes to offshore bank accounts where it stagnates our economy. Furthermore, a large portion of that money goes to inadequate companies who aren't providing any decent services and actively work to fuck up our economy and benefit themselves (see: this financial crisis). Capitalism is supposed to (in theory) benefit companies who provide such a great product or services that people spend money on it, yet you repeatedly support a system in which we reward HAVING money, not MAKING money, which are two distinct things. If you give money the middle class, they use it as BUYING POWER to invigorate companies which have EARNED that money. If you give money to the upper class, most of it does NOTHING and half the people getting it aren't doing anything beneficial to our economy. It's madness. It's complete lunacy.

The problem here isn't that the rich have more than the poor, the problem is that the government is supposed to be as equal as possible regardless, and it simply isn't. Corporate crime is barely prosecuted at best, taxes are continually lowered for the rich, our tax money is LITERALLY handed to the rich in many cases, and they can trounce the middle class all day without impunity. The government is supposed to be a mediating factor, and it is literally doing the opposite. It evens the playing field, but only for people abusing the system at the highest levels. Everyone else gets screwed, and your attitude is "tough shit". Well, call me crazy, but I don't think saying "tough shit" and letting the establishment do what it wanted to was how this country was founded, or how we got this far. I'm fairly certain "tough shit" wasn't what freed the slaves, gave women the right to vote, or fought the civil rights movement. This country was founded on "Fuck you, give me my fair share" and every major advancement we have made was done in that exact spirit.

If you haven't figured out how the bailout helps everyone, rich and poor, then you obviously don't understand economics, the banking system, or the loan and insurance system and I'm not here to put on a class.

Ya, the government sucks, they do lots of things that make no sense but we've completly gotten away from the issue. The orginal question was wheither or not the 700 billion bailout was needed, wheither it would work or fail and if the government should offer it. Instead we've gotten into this arguement where I've been placed into the position where I have to defend the government as a whole, and I'm really not the person to do that because I don't agree with a lot of what the government does.
Also I seem to be constantly lumped together in with "The Republicans" like its same kind of clone army where every members is exactly the same, but thats completly beside the point because I'm not a Republican nor do I support the Republican party. I supported the bailout, I supported what the democrats added onto it. It was the democrats plan to add that 500,000 limit on packages for leaving executives and payrolls, and I fully support that idea. And it was Republicans, not democrats, who voted in the majority agianst the bailout in the House. Of the entire process of creating and voting on the bailout bill I have been with the democrats the entire way.
I'm not going to argue agianst you on your long long laundry list rant about how much the government sucks because I agree with you way more than I disagree. So why don't we get back to what the topic orginally being discussed.

Lastly if I were to summerize what this country was founded on in a single sentance I would probably change "Fuck you, give me my fair share" to "Fuck you, give me my fair chance." But that little statement carries less meaning than dirt, I just thought it was cute.

My entire point is that this bailout is a bandaid being put on a festering wound that has already given you blood poisoning. It's the treatment of a symptom while the disease rages on, unabated. There are plenty of major issues the government should be coming at with this level of seriousness, and our country isn't just falling apart because of the financial issues. It's sad that we can only get the government to take notice when the crisis effects the upper class. There are plenty of major issues that the government could fix in a much simpler way, that would improve the quality of life for almost every American:

1. Health care
2. Jobs going overseas
3. Corporate crime
4. Education
5. Water pollution
6. Energy independence
7 "War" on drugs

That's a short list, there are plenty more. It's not about whether I think the bailout is needed or not, it's about the fact that we are BARELY having an adult discourse in this country about the bailout while there are plenty of other issues that need adult discourse as well and are getting nothing. The Republicans claim the bill failed in the House because Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings so they voted against it. Let me repeat that:

The Republicans shot down a bill that they otherwise agreed with, because Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings.

We should be waking up and looking at what brought us to this point, and while it is largely deregulation and loss of oversight, those two things are part of a larger cultural issue we have, which you summed up nicely a few posts ago: If you aren't rich, stfu and die. That's the attitude of a large segment of our country, much of which isn't even rich, but has been brainwashed into a fantasy world where the rich got that way because they earned it and without them we are all screwed.

It's like we have some kind of collective Stockholm Syndrome toward the upper class, where they continually (with the help of the government) beat the living piss out of the middle class and the poor, and we lavish them with praise for it. YES SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER! At this point, I don't know whether to call it stupidity or ignorance.

Before you try to act like you aren't like that, I'd like to point out that you want to vote for a guy who wants to do the following:

1. Lower the taxes on the already severely undertaxed upper class.
2. Tax employer healthcare benefits.
3. Hand over more public land to oil companies who already have tons of public, oil-laden land that they AREN'T drilling.
4. Fight funding for new energy sources, which is a massive source of middle-class jobs, and in fact might be the route to get us out of this financial downturn.

As opposed to the guy who want to do the following:

1. Bring the taxes on the upper class back to what they were under Reagan.
2. Give LARGER tax breaks to the middle class.
3. Give tax credits for health care.
4. Help fund new energy sources.

The reason I keep deviating from talking directly about the bailout is because this is ALL relevant. What got us in this mess, the culture that led here, is incredibly important. Pretending that the solution is as simple doing the bailout, fixing it's direct problems, and pretending that they aren't part of a larger picture is foolish. The growing class divide and the American attitude toward it are both serious problems and are the real root cause of this crisis we are in now. If we do not address it, we are doomed to repeat this in another crisis, and god forbid it's a financial crisis in the medical industry or something to that effect. This country could completely dismantle, and we are singing tra-la-la all the way there.

ok youre just ranting now.

No, you're just unable to form a serious response, because you know that the sound this country is making right now is the sound of your ideology going up in flames.

This is all just ranting, and its pretty devoid of logical reasoning and specific meaning, for example you still haven't shown that you actually understand the reasons why this current crisis exists. You talk about lack of regulations and oversight, and the need for additional regulations and oversight, and you are correct in the most general sense. BUT you don't really know what about the financial industry suffered from a lack of regulations, and you don't really know what parts of the industry should be regulated more or how that regulation should work.
I completly agree with you that the government is underperforming, but you just make lists and lists of whats wrong without really specifically explaining what the ideal is(in your opinion) and equally importantly there is no explaination how to get there AND how to make sure when that goal is reached how we stay there.
Lastly I hate when you get into partisan politics, building one guy up as a savior and the other as the devil. Stay out of party-politics and just talk about what your personel opinions are, remove guilt through association. I hate it when people are talking about politics and the question of "who are you going to vote for" comes up, and if the answer doesn't fall in line with what the questioner wants to here they just shout out the answerer. At this point it too often turns from two individuals discussing a topic to two candidate supporters dicussing. The person goes from viewing the other as another individual to just "a McCain supporter" or just "an Obama supporter" and suddenly that person will be subject to all the intense "hatred" for the opposing candidate even though they probably have nothing to do with the campaign.
You do this all the time to me. If I say something you'll come back and say well McCain has said (whatever), completly ignoring what I've said. As if I cannot vote for McCain without agreeing with him 100% on all the issues, and if McCain ever does something or says something you disagree with I'm suddenly sharing in McCain's "guilt" dispite having opinions of my own.
To put it simply, just because I'm probably going to vote for McCain, doesn't mean all my opinions are exactly the same as his. It would be impossible to elect ANYONE to public office if everyone only voted for a candidate who agreed with them 100% of the time.
In another example: You are an Obama supporter, and I've seen a video where Obama doesn't put his hand over his heart when listening to the National Anthem while everyone else around him is. BUT I'm never going to infer that because Obama did this and you support him that you would do the same in the same situation. And just because Obama takes a certain stance on an issue I'm never going to assume that you hold the exact same opinion, I'm going to ask you for your opinions because I believe that they are unique, like everyone else's.

Your example is idiotic at best. I'm describing the most important issue facing America in any capacity whatsoever, and you talk about Obama putting his hand over his heart during the pledge one time. I'm relating that point to the candidates currently running, and it apparently goes over your head. You just contradicted yourself immensely. You tell me that I'm not saying how to fix it.... right after I distinctly go over how one of these Presidential candidates is interested in working on it and the ways he is going to.

The problem is that YOU can't see past partisan politics. Newsflash: Who we elect is related to the government. It's a relevant issue. I don't know what the hell to tell you if you think otherwise. You want me to provide solutions, but when I provide solutions that we are actually capable of (like not voting for morons), you tell me I'm partisan. I couldn't give a shit less if Obama is a Democrat and McCain is a Republican. If this was the McCain of the 90s, I might have a slightly different view on him, but he isn't.

As I said, THESE are the most important issues facing our country, and where the two Presidential candidates stand on those issues is important, whether you want to hide YOUR partisan politics behind it or not. If you want to tell me why McCain is better equipped to handle these issues than Obama, please go right ahead, but don't sit there and tell me that ELECTING PEOPLE I THINK ARE BETTER EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THE SITUATION isn't a solution, because in America, the people don't have other solutions. Voting is the only solution we have. You can wax poetic all day about what exact measures the government should take, but that is all worthless if you can't even figure out whose policies more closely resemble those.

You say "Well, I can vote for McCain without agreeing 100% with him." Well, if you want to vote for someone who has been completely and horribly wrong on all of these issues, I don't know what to tell you. What the hell ARE you voting for him for then? Since he has been massively wrong on Iraq, new energy, the economy, foreign relations, etc. etc. etc..... what in the name of God is this magical special issue that trumps all those?

Debate with me on the subject if you want, but don't try to sit there with a straight face and tell me that who we vote for isn't the ONLY worthwhile part of this discourse.

There is lots of logic in what I am saying, you are either choosing ignorance or sadly wallowing in it. I don't know which one, but it doesn't really matter because the effect is the same: You sitting there with your fingers in your ears, shouting, trying not to listen. I can sum it up very simple if you want (even though I already did but it was either too complicated or just hurt your capitalist feelings too hard):

This financial crisis is part of an overall issue in America, where the class divide has gotten out of control. The rich wield equivalent, if not outright superior, power compared to our elected officials. Everyone below the upper class is suffering while the upper class gets richer, richer, richer, and richer. This is a trend caused by our current policies and it's a trend that will continue if we keep those policies (by electing McCain). We can sit around and make up little fantasies all day about how this financial crisis is an isolated incident but it simple isn't. Corporate corruption and government complicity run deep, MILES DEEP, and this is just part of the overall class struggle in this country. This issue is WAY bigger than just the current financial crisis. It is a complex web of issues that systematically keep making the rich richer and the poor power, while the middle class moves into the latter category.

THIS IS UNREGULATED CAPITALISM. THIS IS WHAT IT CAUSES. THIS IS YOUR IDEOLOGY AT WORK.

This is economic tyranny. This is a world where the government wields half the power of the corporate elite. We fix it now, or we don't fix it, and throwing MORE MONEY and MORE TAX BREAKS at the upper class while PUNISHING THE MIDDLE CLASS FURTHER isn't going to make things better.

Last note: You can sit on your high horse with your financial magazine articles about the crisis, and think that makes you more informed and more intelligent, but if you walk into the voting booth and then cast your vote for one of the chief architects of this problem, whose attitude is to continue deregulating and throwing money at the rich... It really doesn't matter what the hell you think you know. In fact, it only exposes your further immaturity and ignorance.

You are accusing me of being ignorant and sitting on my high horse because I read financial articles every day in the newspapers and then want to talk about finance? How does this work? Ya I've got a high horse that I sit on, its called education.
McCain is hardly a chief architect of this problem, no politian is a cause of the problem, you could make the arguement that the government allowed the problem to form by ignoring data that pointed towards this problem several years ago. But you have to realize that in economics you are always heading towards crisis if you only look at trends. It would be like looking at a person and breaking down their sallery to a day-to-day earning, lets say its 300 bucks a day. And then saying if that person spent 350 every day for a week that they are heading towards a crisis, namely bankrupty and unpaid debts. It is true that the trend shows movement towards bankrupty because the man is spending more than his income, but its fairly safe to say that he'll hold off on spending in the future.
Lastly you didn't provide a solution by making this list of what you think Obama will do.
1. Bring the taxes on the upper class back to what they were under Reagan.
2. Give LARGER tax breaks to the middle class.
3. Give tax credits for health care.
4. Help fund new energy sources.

I want you to do two things for me ninespine, I firstly want you to explain to me how this economic crisis got started and why the situation is a crisis. And I don't want to hear "lack of regulations" I want to hear what you think should have been regulated more and how that regulation would have changed the outcome. There are several factors that caused this problem, additional regulations on certain parts of the financial industry may have helped, so the answer is out there.
Secondly, I want you to explain how each item on your list will help the economy.

f

hi

hai gusy

ranks i mist you

The difference between me and you, Wiseone, is that I'm not going to sit here and pretend that reading some newspapers makes me an economist. You will. The finer points of this crisis are far too complex to understand by reading the Wall Street Journal. I'll admit my inability to grasp them. You won't. You'll keep pretending that you know exactly what is going on and what we should do. If you know what we should do so well, why aren't you running the economy?

My point is, if a car manufacturer repeatedly makes cars that explode at random, I don't really need to know the protocols of their assembly line to know they have a manufacturing issue.

I read what respected economists write about it, without pretending to know as much as them, and respect their opinions and their solutions. It's called humility, try it sometime.

I could have easily went to wikipedia, paraphrased a few lines about the crisis and said "Haha, I know what I am talking about", but that's a Wiseone move, not a Ninespine move.

The point is that you are trying to drag my larger point down by making it about finer little points that are frankly insignificant. I don't know what exactly I am supposed to say that is going to convince you that a more powerful middle class with access to better jobs will help the economy. Mostly, it's common sense. The middle and lower classes spend their money on goods and services based on the quality of those goods and services. That's capitalism. If the middle class is more economically powerful, the wonderful rules of capitalism ensure that their spending power goes toward businesses which are "deserving" of their money. If you keep stuffing the upper class full of money at every chance, you aren't just rewarding those companies have earned it through those laws, but you are rewarding EVERYONE who has money, no matter what.

Do I honestly need to explain that any further? For someone who thinks that they are a Nobel prize winning scholar of economics, your ignorance is brutal.

You are completly correct about the middle class, they are the spending power that keeps the economy going. And it is alarming that the middle class is getting smaller. How do we fix it? The credit crisis is actually helping but its hardly a solution, and whatever a real solution is I don't have one. And I realize that I don't know everything, however I do understand this credit crisis and how its going to affect people because of my education in economics over the last 2 years and because I read the paper.
My point is that while it may be clear that if a car manufacturer makes cars that randomly explode there is a manufacturing issue, a person is hardly in a position to call for changes to the manufacturing process if thats all the information he knows(ie, somewhere there is a problem).

There are various ways to fix the class crisis. We should be doing the following:

1. Creating a single-payer health program.
2. Funding new energy, which is good for our future, but also creates lots of jobs right now.
3. Fixing the tax code, which unfairly puts the tax burden on the middle class.
4. Stop throwing our tax dollars at large corporations who don't need it.
5. Expand programs like welfare and affirmative action.
6. Put more money into the school system, and establish decent standards.

That's a short list, there is plenty more. ALL of these are things that Republican/Conservative ideology is against.

Lets get back to the topic of the financial crisis and save class crisis for another topic.

Just reading the news and I came across this story about the German government bailing out one of its country's largest banks. Even the socialists across the ocean are doing it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7653868.stm

Class crisis IS the topic though. This is just one branch on the class crisis tree. Sectioning this particular issue is pointless, because you can't address the problems.