Thursday, September 18, 2008

Bailout Stupidity

Earlier this summer, the federal government bailed out investment bank Bear Sterns. Then, after mortgage brokers Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae went under, the government stepped in to bail them out too. Supposedly, the bailouts stopped there (and the government did let Lehman Brothers fail without stepping in), but when AIG needed help, the federal government stepped in yet again. All told, these four bailouts will cost the American people over 130 billion dollars, and that is a pretty conservative estimate. (UPDATE: Yeah, pretty conservative. The actual cost will probably be closer to one trillion).

Neither presidential candidate could find it within themselves to condemn these bailouts, and it’s not hard to see why. (Although Sarah Palin did imply that bailing out AIG might not be a good idea). The last thing voters want is a candidate who seems to be standing in the way of government help. Or maybe not—a recent Rasmussen poll found that only 7% of the nation favors bailouts for investment firms—and 65% don’t. (The rest were undecided). But the candidates aren’t taking any chances—they fully support any and all government bailouts.

They shouldn’t, because the recent bailouts were dreadful ideas. Granted, simply letting these investment and insurance giants fail would have had disastrous consequences—many would have lost a great deal of their savings, and others, in the case of the mortgage brokers, would lose their homes.

But the consequences of the bailouts could very well be worse. First, and most obviously, the bailouts mean spending money that we don’t have. The federal budget ran a half trillion dollar deficit in 2008, and it’s obvious that we can’t afford to spend another hundred billion paying for private company’s failures. Washington can save companies like AIG from bankruptcy—but when the government can’t pay its debts, who will it turn to?

Apart from the careless stewardship of our money (and really, does anyone expect any less from Washington?), the government bailouts represent a frightening sort of socialism. The United States government is now probably the biggest insurer on the planet—and that can’t be right.

Capitalism is built around the freedom to succeed—and conversely, the freedom to fail. When starting a business—or investing in one, or, say, getting insurance or a mortgage from one—the individual is allowed to keep what he earns from his deal—but is also responsible for his or her losses. They are not the government’s responsibility.

Yes, had Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae failed, people would have been hurt. But welcome to capitalism—when those people invested in these companies, they took the risk that these companies would fail. Some perfectly innocent people would have lost everything (or nearly everything, this isn’t the Great Depression here) had any of these companies failed, and it’s not fair, but it is an integral part of capitalism.

Capitalism is distinguished by booms and busts (as opposed to socialism, which is just one long decline). There would be trouble and turmoil and difficulty had the bailouts not happened, but that is just part of the cycle. The fiscal situation would eventually change, and the economy would become stronger than ever.

Those conservatives (and there are many) who support the bailouts argue that we must structure the bailouts in such a way as to ensure that they are never necessary again. Right. No expansion of government is ever temporary. Maybe Freddie Mac and AIG and the rest of the bunch will learn their lesson and never need help again—but some company will, and when it does, the federal government will come running. These bailouts send a dangerous message: “don’t be afraid to fail; the government will bail you out.”


At September 19, 2008 at 3:20 AM , Blogger Throwing Stones said...

Bailout Stupidity?
Well it looks as if it was a pretty ggod plan if Nancy Pelosie wants to take credit for it.

Just look at the Stock Market for the past 2 days.

At September 19, 2008 at 6:31 AM , Blogger Bob said...

Look, things have looked pretty darn bad, and bleak, and depressing,in the banking and brokerage field forthe past week or two I know it and beleive me, I've felt it... no question about that. But in the defense of the President, this was something not of his doing. It was caused by years and years of callous and money hungry people that just gave out mortgage paper to almost anyone that could put down a minimum down payment. This was a bubble that was bound to burst. Was it disgraceful? Sure it was, but it was not the fault of Washington.
The pro-growth, pro-jobs strategy to get our economy back on track. John McCain's strategy includes taking the near-term actions needed to provide immediate help to American families while also taking the longer-term steps necessary to secure America's economic prosperity and leadership in the world. Along with the new and much needed laws the feds have set forward today. I think we are going to be just fine.
As for John McCain, and those people that are so short sighted that they feel one or two issues out weigh the rest, I feel sorry for you. Go on an believe that your principle and or values trump his good points, well then go on. But don’t tell the rest of us here that YOU are right and that WE are wrong. You opinion as demented as it is, is just YOUR opinion. Nothing more.

The way that I see it, is that the most sacred responsibility vested in a president is the commander in chief - is to "preserve and protect" American citizens. John McCain has the necessary vision and unrivaled experience to command the United States armed forces and adapt our nation's defenses to the demands of a changing and dangerous world
He believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.As a POW in Vietnam, John McCain experienced the worst assaults on human dignity imaginable. Yet each day he also saw in his fellow prisoners the power of human compassion and the will to prevail against unimaginable evil. It is this experience, and a life dedicated to public service, that has imbued in John McCain a fundamental commitment to the protection of human dignity that will shape his presidency. America needs leadership devoted to the public interest, not the special interest, and a government that fulfills its duties with unfailing integrity, accountability, and common sense. The exact opposite of Barack Obam’s ideology

At September 19, 2008 at 6:57 AM , Blogger Beth said...

How isn't government bailouts like welfare moms who have more kids to get more benefits? You are rewarding bad behavior and thinking it will stop problems, when in fact it will forever be a sign that a safety net exists for bad businesses.

At September 19, 2008 at 6:58 AM , Blogger Throwing Stones said...

I agree with you Bob. Btw, I just checked the market and guess what?
It's up 415 points.

At September 19, 2008 at 7:01 AM , Blogger Throwing Stones said...

Beth said: You are rewarding bad behavior"

Along with saving millions of peoples retirements, life savings, homes, jobs etc. etc. etc.
Mean anything to you?
It does to me.
Where’s your compassion?

At September 19, 2008 at 7:03 AM , Blogger Throwing Stones said...

Beth said:"How isn't government bailouts like welfare"

The BIG difference is that these people are working people, who worked and have jobs that are in jeperardy, as are their homes thst thet WORKRD hard for to get.
That is NOT like welfare.
You just don't seem to get it.

At September 19, 2008 at 7:18 AM , Blogger Beth said...

Throwing Stones, I can now see you are not a conservative. Conservatism is about personal responsibility. People lose their homes when they live beyond their means. Investments are a risk. There are no guarantees in life, and our country was founded on equal opportunity, not on governmental guarantees. Our Constitution provides for the common defense and GENERAL welfare, not specific welfare.

At September 19, 2008 at 7:20 AM , Blogger Kris said...

my husband works for one of the large brokerage houses. we have been all over this unfolding crisis. this morning we were having coffee and talking about how we feel so conflicted. our political views would bailout, no way, take your hits. but in reality, how long and deep and bloody would the failures be and how long would it take to recover and could we recover? stone, the reasons you stated: homes, retirement, jobs, are big deals. confidence in banks , a big deal.

bob, you are right. there is enough blame to go around and many people for many years have to take some of that blame, from both sides of the isle.

do we let the entire financial system break...and in doing so send the worlds economies into free fall...i don't know the answer...this is history being made.


At September 19, 2008 at 7:26 AM , Blogger Beth said...

Kris, you ask "could we ever recover" had the bailouts not happened, and I would say yes, it might not be easy but we would work hard and do whatever it takes to recover. It's the human spirit, and in America we have the freedoms to do it as we all see fit.

You know, because it is the taxpayers who are fixing this, we all still need to recover from it, with the bailouts. As Daniel pointed out, our deficit is getting even larger, it will affect us all for a very long time.

At September 19, 2008 at 8:16 AM , Blogger Throwing Stones said...

Kris, I can see that YOU understand it clearly.

Beth: you say that “ You can now see that I am not a conservative. Conservatism is about personal responsibility. People lose their homes when they live beyond their means. Investments are a risk”
My answer to you is...So what? If being a conservative means that I see thru blind eyes only, then you know what? I don’t want to be the conservative you describe!!!
Sure you have to live within your means, but things do happen, this was NOT the fault of the people it was the HUNGRY realestate people and the montage brokers and the banks fault for not screening the credit reports or not even caring about the fact the people couldn’t afford the homes in question. It was the lenders who we at fault not the home buyers. But it even goes further than that. The whole country’s economy was at risk if the Feds did not step in.In fact it was the Clinton administration that appointed several people to positions in Freddie Mac and Fannie May as payoffs. These people should be in jail. Bush had nothing to do with this.
This situation had a snowball effect on EVERYTHING and everyone, even you.

you asked "could we ever recover" had the bailouts not happened, and I would say NO or Maybe. Every type of business would have been at risk .And let me tell you it still is not solved, When banks begin to tumble, people panic they sell their investments to early and they lose their savings and so on.
This effects the store that YOU shop at because their rate of borrowing goes way up or they may not be able to borrow or get credit at all.
Your conservative principles don’t mean a thing if you can’t pay the rent or buy food.
So don’t give us your high and mighty conservative crap. It just don’t fly here

At September 19, 2008 at 8:32 AM , Blogger Bob said...

To you everything is a Conservative or not problem.


There are no guarantees in life, and our country was founded on equal opportunity, not on governmental guarantees. Our Constitution provides for the common defense and GENERAL welfare, not specific welfare.---------------------------------------

It's the human spirit, and in America we have the freedoms to do it as we all see fit.

Things like this are fine for a bumper sticker, but they won’t solve anything.

At September 19, 2008 at 8:51 AM , Blogger Throwing Stones said...

Conservatism or not. Bankruptcy wasn’t really an option because of ripple effects and complexity it would have on all the insurance subs banks, mortgage brokers etc.
The whole point of the bailout and similar measures is to restore confidence among some very nervous financial players who are at risk of succumbing to an acute case of scared people perpetuating a chain reaction of failure.
It's so so complexed Beth, conservatism is not always the answer.

At September 19, 2008 at 9:34 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

"THESE PLATITUDES, are just that... Just PLATITUDES.

There are no guarantees in life, and our country was founded on equal opportunity, not on governmental guarantees. Our Constitution provides for the common defense and GENERAL welfare, not specific welfare.---------------------------------------

It's the human spirit, and in America we have the freedoms to do it as we all see fit.

Umm no. Those are called the building blocks of our Republic.

Platitudes are much what you've advocated herein.

Republicans good and noble.

Democrats bad and Communists.

Bailouts under the Bush administration good.

Bailouts by Bill Clinton bad.

Sounds to me like a huge contradiction. However, it is said that contradictions cannot exist. Whenever contradictions seem to exist, it is recommended that one check their premises. Because, one of them is wrong.

At September 19, 2008 at 9:57 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

"You know, because it is the taxpayers who are fixing this..."


You may pass GO and collect $200.

What Bob and TS are saying is that our beloved Government has come to our aid and rescue thereby saving "millions of peoples retirements, life savings, homes, jobs etc. etc. etc."

This line of thinking dismisses a very fundamental point with respect to Government. That is, Government does not produce. Government consumes. As such, the Government cannot solve these fiscal problems vis' a vis' bailouts until they first take money from those who produce (i.e. the taxpayers of America).

Of course they wouldn't think to admit it or tell you as much, but what Bob and TS are advocating here is 100% unadultered COLLECTIVISM.

We The People...working and producing to have our money collected by the state so that the state may then bailout corporations which it deems necessary for our overall prosperity and the preservation of "millions of peoples retirements, life savings, homes, jobs etc. etc. etc."

In today's political climate, the battle of ideas is not one of Democrats vs. Republicans or Liberals vs. Conservatives.

It is undeniably a battle between Collectivists and Individualists.

And it is quite apparent which side the both of you are fighting for.

Now, of course you can resort to chastising me or any other such tactic.

But the real challenge is in having you present a contrarian view by which the very thing you are advocating is not clearly defined as Collectivism.

At September 19, 2008 at 10:11 AM , Blogger Beth said...

Seriously, Biden says it's our "patriotic duty" to pay taxes, WTF?!? So, TS and Bob, is it our patriotic duty to use that tax money so Uncle Sam can pick and chose which businesses it wants to help out? What about small businesses that go under? Where's the direct help for them?

At September 19, 2008 at 10:44 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

"Seriously, Biden says it's our "patriotic duty" to pay taxes, WTF?!?"

WTF indeed. But, you see Beth..this is clearly why I asserted last week or so that we have, at present, a choice between the Communist/Socialist party (evidenced by the aforemention comment from Biden) or the Fascist party.

Because, as you well know, the Republican party has without question exhibited as much when they promote militarism and the defeat of terrorism (with an "at all costs") ideology. In so doing, they have castigated those who have reservations about the practice of classifying persons as "unlawful enemy combatants", holding them indefinitely without charges, and the suspension of habeas corpus among other things.

At September 19, 2008 at 10:59 AM , Blogger Bob said...

Beth, your last post was completely off the wall.
Nobody here has suggested the insane things that you have mentioned.
What I and Stones and even Kris have said it that you can't throw out the baby with the dirty water.
You can't punish millions of people because of the stupidness of a few greedy Corporations.

And you Soapbox are stuck on stupid...Wrong? That's your opinion.

With your BS that=
Republicans good and noble.

Democrats bad and Communists.
Why didn't you throw in that conservatives can't do anything wrong?
That's your premise and logic,in every argument.
Your premise is that conservatives can't do anything wrong.
You ultra conservatives are just as bad as the Liberals are. You seem to think issues are simply "Black or white" and don't bother to look the whole picture when inflicting you misinformed opinions onto the public. It appears to be that from the point of view of a person with conservative values, Immigration is bad, abortion is the most deadly sin in the world, global warming is a word not to be uttered in your presence, and anyone that don't agree with you are inherently evil ..These are YOUR opinions and yours only,the problem is that there is no evidence to support this.

For example, you are SO against Sarah Palin, when 99 percent of the conservative base is delighted with her. Why? I thought conservative values are the way of traditional Christians . Sarah Palin has 5 children thought this was a core value with Christian conservatives. Why deny her the opportunity? Would you be asking the same question if she was a father?
Do you have a problem with her not spending time with her children? I thought this was a core value with Christian conservatives?
Why wouldn't her values help her order her public life thereby making her a better, more balanced leader? Maybe since she sees what destruction the lib agenda would bring to our country that she wants to do her part to keep her kids from having to pay the price for it. Is it only honorable for a man to lay down what he would prefer to do a greater thing?

At September 19, 2008 at 11:16 AM , Anonymous Richard said...

When has a major conservative leader or organization NOT rallied behind the GOP nominees? The only principled stand I can think of was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush had refused to oppose Democratic gun control measures in the previous few years. When asked about the NRA and its members, he responded, "Where else are they going to go?" i.e. who else are they going to vote for? The NRA responded by endorsing neither Bush nor Clinton in 1992. Clinton won, the Brady Bill became law shortly thereafter, and most conservative pundits said this proved that the NRA had shot itself in the foot.
What actually happened was that the Brady Bill caused NRA membership to more than double, from less than three million to over six million, its fundraising skyrocketed, and it has accomplished one political victory after another, from the federal level down to the state and local levels, ever since. The Brady Bill's worst sections have been phased out since that time.

The key point is that the GOP got the message that they could not take the NRA for granted. The NRA, you might say, settled one issue once and for all: The GOP opposes gun control. Period. That is a rare accomplishment in national politics.

This is the only time I can think of a conservative organization declaring that it will lose in the short term in order to win in the long term. In every other case, "the lesser of two evils, short term," "we cannot lose this election," "this is the most important election in history," etc. is the approach taken. So, it is not shocking or surprising that conservative leaders support McCain and Palin. Gary Bauer, for example, got on board with McCain a long time ago to (A) gain access and influence the candidate and the GOP platform, and (B) oppose the evil of an Obama presidency.
Talk radio hosts like Sean Hannity and Rush and Marc Levin talk politics, not culture, so that subject does not come up. So, I ask, how many people are reached by by these compared to those who see liberal columnist, hear liberal talk radio, see liberal comics on late night TV shows, etc., It has been years since I have heard any radio show, or a Hollywood movie that doesn't make a Liberal political statement any more?

At September 19, 2008 at 11:19 AM , Anonymous Richard said...

I really feel that conservatism as we knew it a year or so ago is DEAD. Even the most conservative viable candidates in the GOP on the national level do not have a coherent, philosophical conservatism. They merely have a fairly high (but not perfect) batting average when it comes to taking conservative positions on piecemeal issues. They do and say things that reveal the lack of coherent conservative foundations, and their less than perfect batting average also tends to reveal the shallowness and inconsistency of their conservatism.

At September 19, 2008 at 11:46 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd like to show these readers how hypercritical conservatives are. Limbaugh was thoughtful and sympothetic with the Spears girl. I know why. The candidate for vice presidents daughter is in the same boat. Conservatives are only sympothethetic with like minded individuals. That is how the Nazis’ thought. They were the only ones who knew what was right for the world. They also castigated anyone who didn’t think as they did. Can anyone see a similar train of thought here. A sick selfish mind is never wrong in its on sight. This is why we have to paddle selfish childrens bottoms. Then they get the message that they are not the only ones who have a right to be heard. Life is filled with COMPROMISING WITH OTHERS. If conservatives do not wakeup we will find ourselves with Obama as our President.

I have nothing against conservatives and I don’t want to argue about their beliefs. I think a pro-life stance is honorable. But I do hate the hypocricy that often seeps out of the “conservative movement.” And there has been no better illustration that I can think of than the prenancy of Bristol Palin.
Conservatives seem to believe that they are the only ones that can see the light. They get upset over criticism and start with the name calling as I've seen here by soapboxgod, He thinksonly he is right and everyone else is a communist or a socialist or afascist or a nazi, or lazy welfare recipients!
Well look in the mirror!!

At September 19, 2008 at 11:50 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

Let me just say Richard...


Excellent post; Logical and Reasoned. I like that in debate and discussion so thank you.

At September 19, 2008 at 12:24 PM , Anonymous p roberts said...

it's hard to object to the government's mass bailouts as similar debt-producing methods were put into action to bring the U.S. out of the Depression... our economy has been supported and driven by debt ever since

At September 19, 2008 at 1:00 PM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

I am more than happy to oblige you Bob on the issues herein. Let me break it down

"Why didn't you throw in that conservatives can't do anything wrong? That's your premise and logic,in every argument. Your premise is that conservatives can't do anything wrong."

First, the reason why I don't "throw out that conservatives can't do anything wrong" is for the very simple fact that I don't talk about "Conservatives". What I do talk about is "Conservatism. And, with respect to Conservatism in the sense that I define it (that being a very strong likeness to Libertarianism), I find the ideology, in practice by the individual, to be a righteous and just.

Secondly, have not correctly asserted my premise in the least. My premise is, and has been my entire adult life, based upon my belief that I exist on this earth for no other purpose other than for my own rational self-interest. No-one has a claim on me or my labor. The premise by which I live is one grounded in individual right. I live my life according to my pursuits, goals, desires and morals. In so doing, I am not infringing upon the rights of my fellow man in his willingness to do the same.

"You ultra conservatives are just as bad as the Liberals are. You seem to think issues are simply "Black or white" and don't bother to look the whole picture when inflicting you misinformed opinions onto the public."

I haven't the slightest idea what you're inferring to when you say "ultra conservatives". Issues are in fact Black or White. Take a look at a seemingly gray area and dare tell yourself it isn't comprised of a series of black and white dots. Perhaps if you were to elaborate on this (by way of an example perhaps) I might better understand what you're getting at. As for the "whole picture" argument of your comment. The "whole picture" for me in all of this political debate comes down to one thing and one thing only. Individual Freedom and Individual Liberty. At the end of the day, is the individual in America more or less free than he was yesterday? That is the whole picture. The "whole picture" for me is not about fostering government's practice of collectivization for the sake of the "common good".

"It appears to be that from the point of view of a person with conservative values, Immigration is bad..."

I should point out here that your desire to use the word "Immigration" as opposed to "Illegal Immigration" in conjunction with the word "bad" emulates the practice by the MSM during debate over the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007. There is a clear distinction between Immigration and "Illegal" immigration. Personally, when it comes to immigration, I will have you know that I am quite liberal with regards to the practice (It is who we are as a country). HOWEVER, it is my opinion that we can not have liberal or easy immigration policies while at the same time having a very generous welfare system in place. It creates a magnet as we've seen.

"...abortion is the most deadly sin in the world"

I do not find the legislation of morality to be a sound or just practice. So, your comment with respect to me, couldn't be further off the mark. I don't condone the practice but yet, I don't agree with the Republican party's wishes to invoke a Constitutional Amendment banning it. I am a Federalist. As such, I think the issue ought to be left to the states. I do not think that taxpayer dollars should be dispersed to carry out the practice.

" warming is a word not to be uttered in your presence"

You're grasping at straws on that one my good man. I have no problem at all with having an honest discussion on the subject. In fact, I've written many published Op-Eds on the subject. With respect to the subject, I take great issue with the simple fact that throughout history there have been people who wish to enslave the masses through Socialism. And, when you look at Socialism in the context of it being an answer or a solution in search of an equation by which to sell it, I find it both ALARMING and much too COINCIDENTAL that the solutions to Global Warming parallel Socialism. To me, Global Warming (as it is currently presented) is the equation that Socialism has been looking for all along.

If you wish to discuss the issue and it's potential causes and effects, we can do that anytime Bob.

"...and anyone that don't agree with you are inherently evil"

I'm not in search for people that agree with me. But, when someone's political ideology runs counter to mine in such a way that their ideology and belief system adopts any view that seeks to stake claim to my life, my liberty, or my pursuit, I do take umbrage with that. I do not exist for the sake of the state in any way, shape, or form. I am a means to my own end. I am not an end to the means of others. It is not my purpose in life to have my money taken from me to then be redistributed to persons and/or entities to whom the government and its minions deem just.

"..These are YOUR opinions and yours only,the problem is that there is no evidence to support this."

My "opinions" or rather my philosophy by which I live and from whence my political views come are founded upon documents that founded this country. Certainly, it can't be more evidentiary than that.

"For example, you are SO against Sarah Palin, when 99 percent of the conservative base is delighted with her."

Never once did I say I was "against Sarah Palin". What I did say is that A) no matter how conservative she is, she'll still be subjected to the moderation and liberalism within the greater Republican establishment; and B) I wouldn't vote for her if it is her honest belief that, in her view on abortion, that woman in instances of rape of incest will be made by the state to give birth to their child, I would NOT vote for her. Now, let me point out here quite clearly the absolute irony in your earlier abortion comment aimed at me about abortion being the "most deadly sin in the world". Do you realize how completely backwards you've got that? It is Sarah Palin who implores such a view isn't it? I must say, you hypocrisy is not only astounding there but oh so blatantly obvious that not even you get it.

I am not a "Christian" Conservative. I don't find religion to have a place in politics quite frankly. I find religion to be quite a personal thing and I personally do not look to my political leaders for "spiritual inspiration". That to me is what a priest, rabi, etc. is for.

At September 19, 2008 at 1:26 PM , Blogger Throwing Stones said...

It is very fortunate that the government has chosen to bail out these institutions. Given the present state of things it is likely that the Bush administration had little choice. Congress, of course has only one possible choice - blame Bush and take credit if things work out.

At September 19, 2008 at 1:27 PM , Blogger Throwing Stones said...

What is unfortunate is that Raines, Gorelick, Johnson, the black caucus, obama, Dodd, Barney Frank, et al put the taxpayers in this position,imho. There was no choice but to do this. We all pay a little now or we all LOSE EVERYTHING now.
Take your pick.

At September 19, 2008 at 1:31 PM , Blogger Bob said...

Wall Street extended a huge rally Friday as investors stormed back into the market, relieved that the government plans to rescue banks from billions of dollars in bad debt. The Dow Jones industrials rose more than 375 points, giving them a massive gain of more than 785 points over two days, and Treasurys fell as money flowed into equities.
So the Fed's plan has worked at least for now. And now was the time to set this plan in motion. Let's just hope that it continues to work.
For everyones good, even yours beth.

At September 19, 2008 at 1:35 PM , Blogger Bob said...

The way that this thig got started was the fact that Bill Clinton pushed for minority to be able to get lending money from banks which KNEW those people couldn't meet the standard to get the loan.
Later, after all those standards were relaxed so poor people could pretend to buy homes a lot of other people jumped on the bandwagon.
But the way to look at it is Whatever protects my savings and yours and prevents another depression I'm all for. How can I not be for that?

At September 19, 2008 at 1:39 PM , Blogger Throwing Stones said...

Thank you Bob, I can see that you know what the real score is down there on Wall Street.
And I most certainly agree with you.
I'm worried about a massive number of banks going bottoms up. That would be disastrous for our economy. I think President Bush did the right thing, although he will still be vilified by most everybody who are opportunistic in wanting our economy to collapse. That's you, Mr. Obama and your thugs, including the ones from Tennessee and hacker nation who your type have nurtured to be anti-social personality disorders; better known as thieves

At September 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

Those sound like Hannity talking points if you ask me. I'd bet the house that guy is echoing the same things both Bob and TS are saying.

It's similar to, contrary to his assertions of being a "Reagan Conservative" or Free Market kinda guy who would let the energy market determine itself through sustainability, he advocates "doing it all" which clearly entails propping up renewables at the expense of oil and coal.

The guy and his "Stop Obama/Hillary Express" are an embarassment to the cause just as is condoning a practice which does nothing but induce a moral hazzard.

At September 19, 2008 at 1:41 PM , Blogger Throwing Stones said...

But you know what? John McCain and Sarah Palin have to make a point of pointing out how the Clinton’s along with the blessing from Barny Frank ordered their pack of clowns, to force Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac to buy up all those bad mortgages. This is just another example of the long term plans the Marxist socialists have of destroying this nation's economy.

At September 19, 2008 at 1:45 PM , Blogger Throwing Stones said...

How long do you think it will be until Obama replaces Biden with Hillary?
It's not as nuts as it sounds.
You watch, old Joe will have a health problem and bow out.
And here comes Hillary.

At September 19, 2008 at 1:55 PM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

Hannity talking points alright....

At September 19, 2008 at 2:01 PM , Blogger Bob said...

Even though the past week was very rocky, the stock market recovered and finished with a gain for the week
Encouraging? Yes. Only time will tell.

At September 19, 2008 at 2:06 PM , Blogger Throwing Stones said...

If you are asking me if I listen to Sean Hannity? The answer is yes I do. Everdently you do as well. So what?
Do I agree with him, yes, most of the time. So what again!
I try and listen to Sean Hannity’s show whenever I can and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielly also.

At September 19, 2008 at 2:08 PM , Blogger Throwing Stones said...

What else would I listen to?
I try to listen and be as informed as I can. Don’t mean that I’m brain washed from anyone of them. I still have my own opinions.

At September 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM , Blogger Bob said...

I also listen to Rush, Glenn, and Sean, watch Bill, and Sean, and Glenn Sometimes I agree with them all and there are times that I don’t . But on this issue of McCain. I think that they have all come around and are in his corner now.

At September 19, 2008 at 3:12 PM , Blogger Bob said...

By the way, did you ever hear that John Kerry said John McCain was forced to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate by Rush Limbaugh?

At September 19, 2008 at 9:01 PM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

"If you are asking me if I listen to Sean Hannity? The answer is yes I do. Everdently [sic] you do as well."

Not since the Terri Schiavo debacle of which he was on the wrong side of. Sean and Levin are the worst. Rush at least has some principle and Beck is somewhat objective. The other two are flippin GOP cheerleaders in the
1st degree. Neither one of them have a shred of credibility or objectivity.

At September 20, 2008 at 3:57 AM , Blogger Bob said...

"The other two are flippin GOP cheerleaders in the
1st degree. Neither one of them have a shred of credibility or objectivity."

Oh, I get it!

At September 20, 2008 at 9:30 AM , Anonymous Monka said...

Thay are all alike Sean and Levin and Rush also.
You self loving Conservatives are all alike.
With that Conservatives & Republicans good and noble.

Democrats bad and Communists.

At September 20, 2008 at 9:43 AM , Blogger Beth said...

Looks like napqueen is back (aka monka). And again you missed the point entirely, nappy.

How's school coming along so far?

At September 20, 2008 at 9:49 AM , Blogger Kris said...

there is going to be some sort of exit plan for the gov...somewhat like the s&l crisis is the 80's. the gov stepped in, it took about 9 yrs, but they stepped back out.

we, the taxpayers, may actually make money in this deal. it depends on the negotiated price we buy for.


At September 20, 2008 at 1:20 PM , Blogger B said...

Big business should not be allowed to become too large to fail. A business with that much influence is too big for a free market. It has access to wholesale market manipulation. And it has the privilege of depending on a government safety net if it fails.

The recent economic crisis demonstrates that such businesses will now be rescued at taxpayer’s expense when they suddenly collapse. The CEO of AIG has even demonstrated on national TV that big business leaders expect tax funded rescues. And that diminishes a primary incentive for them to be efficient and prudent. It may even encourage their board members to strategically create a crisis requiring a government bailout rather than suffer losses over time on their own. These business leaders have developed an attitude of entitlement that should inspire corporate welfare reform.

If businesses that are too big to fail are allowed to exist, then they should pay for their own government entitlement programs. This has been the arrangement for the lower classes. That is why social security tax rates in the United States become less for those who become wealthier. Wage earners should not be expected to pay for business welfare too. The influence these businesses have over markets should help them pay for their government programs. And to discourage corporate welfare fraud, those in charge of businesses that either purposely or by neglect cause the government to pay for their rescue should be punished for a kind of embezzlement.

Bryant Arms

At September 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM , Anonymous NO, it's NOT ok to contact this poster said...

So let me see if I have this right.
Greedy banks lend money with crazy risk to people that aren't going to be able to afford the payments once the interest rate changes kick in.. Is this stupid? Where's the regulation in that? Corporate greed is all it is. Another dumb conservitive plan to help the rich?
So let's see. The CEOs of Freddie and Fannie are going to get their 24Mlill when they are ousted. Isn't that nice.
Now if I have this right us whining little Americans get to both lose our houses and pay for the bailout of these stupid companies and the poor CEOs for failing. Isn't that nice.

So do I have that right?
So what alternatives are there?
Well, instead of bailing out the banks and lending institutions the government could help the people who can't make their payments by a form of temporary welfare to them. Some sort of handout to them every month to make up the difference in what they can't pay on their mortgage.
Meanwhile, the government could oust the big shot conservative CEOs of Freddie and Fannie, could institute new regulations to the banks and lending institutions and get this mess back in order.
And what would that cost us little whiners? Instead of paying 50B here and 100B there due to banks not being able to make up the difference in the foreclosures and what they can sell the houses for, we'd instead be paying a fractional cost to allow people to make their payments. There wouldn't be a huge decline in home prices. There'd likely be less foreclosures as a result of that.
But no, our government decides that it's the irresponsible lending institutions that should be helped. Not us.
Ain't that a nice kick in the pants.
Oops, now I'll probably be called a traitor or a commie for insinuating that the government is run by corporations and doesn't care about the little people. Nice work conservative boss man.

At September 20, 2008 at 3:45 PM , Blogger Kris said...

yes, greed is part of the equation, but that greed is on both sides of the isle.

another part to the picture is the liberal push (black caucus one of the big ones) that home ownership should be a 'right'. they worked with fannie and freddie, who in turn gave money to candidates...this push to let all own a home was the beginning of this mess. they had to ease up on qualifications so more minorities could own...and then the 'man' as you called it did put in his part by letting greed guide him.

this problem is bi-partisan


At September 20, 2008 at 3:59 PM , Blogger Throwing Stones said...

Capitalism has to work in bad, as well as good, economic times. That's the way it works!

At September 22, 2008 at 12:11 PM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

"Capitalism has to work in bad, as well as good, economic times. That's the way it works!"

Well you're right about that. However do pray tell how taxpayer subsidies and bailouts is defined as Capitalism.

Succeed or Fail by one's own merit. That is the Capitalist mantra.

At September 22, 2008 at 1:25 PM , Blogger Beth said...

That's the thing, Soapter, capitalism's motivation is such that one tried to profit, but when there are bailouts that motivation has less an effect.

At September 22, 2008 at 3:07 PM , Blogger Daniel Ruwe said...

There's an article James Pethokoukis on RCP saying that the bailout saved $30 trillion. If true...maybe the bailout wasn't such a bad idea.

At September 23, 2008 at 6:26 AM , Blogger Kris said...

a commentator on cnbc told a story this am. his father told him that his grandfather, when the market crashed in the 20-30's, said 'it serves those rich, greedy guys right'. one yr later he had to sell his store and the great depression was in full swing.

this potential breakdown is so big and would have affected everyone...401k's, retirements, price increases for all, loss of jobs (because credit for small and large companies would be gone, so would expansion and thus jobs), no credit for the average joe,

main street would have been in big hurt. we rely on wall street more than we know. when they are happy, we are happy.

the deal is not done yet...partisan politics have now come into play...this is a very scary time and most of the us has no clue of the ramifications we could be facing.


At September 23, 2008 at 8:39 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

"There's an article James Pethokoukis on RCP saying that the bailout saved $30 trillion. If true...maybe the bailout wasn't such a bad idea."

In my opinion, there is no dollar amount which will ever justify the catastrophic demise resulting from the expansion of the Federal Government.

At November 2, 2008 at 9:15 AM , Blogger knowitall said...

This bailout gave more money to the thieves on Wall Street, but did nothing for us. The liberal illuminati were all for this bailout I see, because it involved spending money.

At November 5, 2014 at 5:12 PM , Blogger oakleyses said...

louis vuitton outlet, coach purses, prada outlet, tiffany and co jewelry, nike shoes, red bottom shoes, longchamp handbags, oakley sunglasses, longchamp outlet, christian louboutin outlet, oakley vault, kate spade handbags, louis vuitton handbags, true religion outlet, louis vuitton outlet online, coach outlet, ray ban outlet, nike air max, burberry outlet online, polo ralph lauren outlet, kate spade outlet online, polo ralph lauren, coach outlet store online, nike air max, tiffany jewelry, cheap oakley sunglasses, coach outlet, true religion, christian louboutin, longchamp outlet online, burberry outlet online, michael kors outlet online, michael kors outlet store, michael kors outlet online, tory burch outlet, michael kors outlet, chanel handbags, gucci handbags, michael kors outlet online, nike free, louis vuitton outlet, michael kors outlet online, ray ban sunglasses, christian louboutin shoes, louis vuitton, jordan shoes, prada handbags

At November 5, 2014 at 5:15 PM , Blogger oakleyses said...

nike blazer pas cher, lacoste pas cher, timberland, north face, air max, guess pas cher, nike free, air jordan, sac louis vuitton, air max pas cher, hollister, michael kors canada, lululemon, barbour, abercrombie and fitch, burberry pas cher, hermes pas cher, vans pas cher, north face pas cher, nike air max, sac vanessa bruno, chaussure louboutin, mulberry, nike roshe run, ralph lauren pas cher, louis vuitton, louis vuitton pas cher, sac michael kors, converse pas cher, nike free pas cher, oakley pas cher, ralph lauren, longchamp, new balance pas cher, hollister, nike roshe, louis vuitton uk, tn pas cher, scarpe hogan, true religion jeans, nike air force, longchamp pas cher, michael kors uk, ray ban pas cher, ray ban uk, true religion outlet, nike air max

At November 5, 2014 at 5:20 PM , Blogger oakleyses said...

marc jacobs outlet, beats headphones, canada goose, rolex watches, abercrombie and fitch, celine handbags, new balance outlet, instyler ionic styler, ugg boots, reebok shoes, roshe run, uggs on sale, ghd, north face jackets, nike huarache, valentino shoes, vans outlet, ugg outlet, p90x workout, ugg soldes, mont blanc pens, chi flat iron, canada goose outlet, lululemon outlet, ferragamo shoes, longchamp, nfl jerseys, asics shoes, mac cosmetics, bottega veneta, north face outlet, herve leger, birkin bag, wedding dresses, insanity workout, soccer shoes, soccer jerseys, giuseppe zanotti, nike trainers, canada goose outlet, babyliss pro, canada goose outlet, hollister, jimmy choo shoes, uggs outlet, ugg, mcm handbags

At November 5, 2014 at 5:23 PM , Blogger oakleyses said...

moncler, moncler outlet, hollister, juicy couture outlet, ralph lauren, moncler, louis vuitton canada, montre femme, moncler, canada goose pas cher, pandora uk, parajumpers outlet, thomas sabo uk, iphone 6 case, ray ban, lancel, oakley, swarovski jewelry, supra shoes, moncler, louboutin, uggs canada, coach outlet, swarovski uk, wedding dress, ugg, canada goose, baseball bats, canada goose, timberland shoes, replica watches, pandora jewelry, gucci, moncler, converse shoes, air max, karen millen, hollister clothing, juicy couture outlet, pandora charms, hollister canada, vans, converse, links of london uk, nike air max, moncler, toms outlet, canada goose uk


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home