blissfulbride
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- May 9, 2008
- Messages
- 485
For or against it ?
Bail Out
- Thread starter blissfulbride
- Start date
- Status
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
against I have read the bill and it is garbage!
They are going to try and pass the same thing on Thursday.
No matter how you wrap a turd it still stinks!!!
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/18-tough-questions-and-answers-about-the-bailout.96372/
They are going to try and pass the same thing on Thursday.
No matter how you wrap a turd it still stinks!!!
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/18-tough-questions-and-answers-about-the-bailout.96372/
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,684
Sorry for the threadjack, but I just had to say: Lorelei, DH has this expression . . . "polishing a turd." Whenever his boss sends him to fix another electrician''s screw-ups, I ask him how his day was, and he says, "Well I was polishing turds today!" LOL!
{end threadjack}
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
ROFL!!!Date: 10/1/2008 10:46:31 AM
Author: Irishgrrrl
Sorry for the threadjack, but I just had to say: Lorelei, DH has this expression . . . ''polishing a turd.'' Whenever his boss sends him to fix another electrician''s screw-ups, I ask him how his day was, and he says, ''Well I was polishing turds today!'' LOL!
{end threadjack}
vespergirl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,497
I am both for and against it - even though I am against it in principle, I think that we need to enact the bailout in order to avoid another Great Depression. Our economy depends upon the stability of the financial markets. Thousands of small businesses across the country will fail without the bailou, and as for the large corporations which have been laying off employees, "you ain''t seen nothin'' yet" if the bailout doesn''t get passed.
All businesses operate on bank loans - large ones, small ones, profitable ones, and growing ones. Many employees of small business will be laid off because the business owners won''t be able to pay them without bank loans. Without the bailout, the large finance companies will stop issuing loans, and many businesses, small and large, will go under. That''s how our capitalist system works.
In principle I am against the bailout, because my family has always been financially responsible, and it greatly upsets me that our tax dollars are going to be used to rescue companies that dug their own grave. However, the fact of the matter is that without those financial companies being restored to regular operations, our whole economy will fail, and I don''t think it will help most Americans if the economy gets worse.
All businesses operate on bank loans - large ones, small ones, profitable ones, and growing ones. Many employees of small business will be laid off because the business owners won''t be able to pay them without bank loans. Without the bailout, the large finance companies will stop issuing loans, and many businesses, small and large, will go under. That''s how our capitalist system works.
In principle I am against the bailout, because my family has always been financially responsible, and it greatly upsets me that our tax dollars are going to be used to rescue companies that dug their own grave. However, the fact of the matter is that without those financial companies being restored to regular operations, our whole economy will fail, and I don''t think it will help most Americans if the economy gets worse.
blissfulbride
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- May 9, 2008
- Messages
- 485
amen verpergirl lol
Beacon
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2006
- Messages
- 2,037
For it.
If we do nothing, we go into a situation that will be very destructive. Already people are getting shut out of buying cars, shut out of taking a student loan, cannot refi their home, cannot borrow to fix their roof. It''s the people who actually need to borrow money, average people, who will get killed w/o a deal.
If we do nothing, we go into a situation that will be very destructive. Already people are getting shut out of buying cars, shut out of taking a student loan, cannot refi their home, cannot borrow to fix their roof. It''s the people who actually need to borrow money, average people, who will get killed w/o a deal.
elle_chris
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,511
100% against. With or without the bailout we''re going to be paying for it. With bailout, we''re taking a dangerous step towards nationalizing our banks.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
If something has to be done the only thing I can agree with is directly buying the mortgages at 25 cents on the dollar for the principle on the loan then transferring them to a government corporation as a loan to be repaid with orders that they are to negotiate replacement loans to those in trouble at today's rates and market value for 30 years fixed the groups that got help are required to match the government offer on loans not sold.
Then make the same offer available to everyone.
Then the money is to paid back to the government minus expenses as the loans are repaid.
In 5 years the government can see where the market is and sell the loans with congressional approval in an auction.
While that's being done start throwing crooks in jail and or suing them for everything they own and make sure it does not happen again.
Anyone of the companies who seek help any golden parachutes from the last 180 days are void and must be repaid and consider fraud charges against any exec who took them.
Then make the same offer available to everyone.
Then the money is to paid back to the government minus expenses as the loans are repaid.
In 5 years the government can see where the market is and sell the loans with congressional approval in an auction.
While that's being done start throwing crooks in jail and or suing them for everything they own and make sure it does not happen again.
Anyone of the companies who seek help any golden parachutes from the last 180 days are void and must be repaid and consider fraud charges against any exec who took them.
NewEnglandLady
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 6,299
Agreed.
Because the gov't backed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, they expanded sub-prime lending to people who could not afford a mortgage. What's the risk, right? The gov't will back us up! The gov't saves everybody! Meanwhile the gov't can't control spending, is borrowing left and right and the dollar is inflating. Clearly the gov'ts financial prowess shouldn't be in question here--let's further nationalize our banks through them. I mean who else is going to buy really bad credit, right? Certainly not a business because it would be a BAD decision.
So let's further regulate the market...brilliant since it clearly didn't work before.
It's a terrible plan, it sets a terrible precedent and in the long-term it will be MUCH more painful than letting the market correct itself.
ETA: And I don't buy for a minute that the gov't is going to make a profit on any of these mortgages. Who's even going to know the proper market price when the gov't holds a comparatively large % of the market? It's a whole new social program in the making.
purrfectpear
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 4,079
I''m going to defer to those who work in finance. Most don''t particulary like the idea or the specifics, but the large majority of my friends in the business believe it''s necessary. When McDonald''s has shut down loans for franchises, it''s not a pretty picture out there.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
i''m for it,but taxpayers will pay the damage in the future.
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
It was just passed.
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
Thanks for clarifying.
diamondfan
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2005
- Messages
- 11,016
It might seem like throwing good money after bad but sadly I think we haven''t much choice right now. No, we should not be in the mess. However, we are. And the consequences of NOT fixing it are too great. Let''s afix blame later.
When a patient comes into the ER about to bleed out, you do not sit around arguing why or finding who to blame. You take care of the patient and stabliize them. Then you can go out and find out how it happened and who is responsible. If you worry about it at first, you lose the patient.
When a patient comes into the ER about to bleed out, you do not sit around arguing why or finding who to blame. You take care of the patient and stabliize them. Then you can go out and find out how it happened and who is responsible. If you worry about it at first, you lose the patient.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,146
I loved this article when I read it in hard copy, so I looked to see if I could find it on-line. Here is a link.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081013/johnson
Deborah
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081013/johnson
Deborah
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,146
Excerpts from the article mentioned above follow:
"There has been much moaning, air-sucking and outrage about the $700 billion that the US government is thinking of throwing away on rich New York bankers who have been ripping us off for the past few years and then letting greed drive their businesses into a variety of ditches. In fact, we dole out similar amounts of money every year in the form of payoffs to the armed services, the military-industrial complex and powerful senators and representatives allied with the Pentagon.
On Wednesday, September 24, right in the middle of the fight over billions of taxpayer dollars slated to bail out Wall Street, the House of Representatives passed a $612 billion defense authorization bill for 2009 without a murmur of public protest or any meaningful press comment at all. (The New York Times gave the matter only three short paragraphs buried in a story about another appropriations measure.)
The defense bill includes $68.6 billion to pursue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is only a down payment on the full yearly cost of these wars.
(snip)
This is pure waste. Our annual spending on "national security"--meaning the defense budget plus all military expenditures hidden in the budgets for the departments of Energy, State, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, the CIA and numerous other places in the executive branch--already exceeds a trillion dollars, an amount larger than that of all other national defense budgets combined. Not only was there no significant media coverage of this latest appropriation, there have been no signs of even the slightest urge to inquire into the relationship between our bloated military, our staggering weapons expenditures, our extravagantly expensive failed wars abroad and the financial catastrophe on Wall Street.
The only Congressional "commentary" on the size of our military outlay was the usual pompous drivel about how a failure to vote for the defense authorization bill would betray our troops. The aged Senator John Warner of Virginia, former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, implored his Republican colleagues to vote for the bill "out of respect for military personnel." He seems to be unaware that these troops are actually volunteers, not draftees, and that they joined the armed forces as a matter of career choice, rather than because the nation demanded such a sacrifice from them.
We would better respect our armed forces by bringing the futile and misbegotten wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to an end. A relative degree of peace and order has returned to Iraq not because of President Bush''s belated reinforcement of our expeditionary army there (the so-called surge), but thanks to shifting internal dynamics within Iraq and in the Middle East region generally. Such shifts include a growing awareness among Iraq''s Sunni population of the need to restore law and order, a growing confidence among Iraqi Shiites of their nearly unassailable position of political influence in the country, and a growing awareness among Sunni nations that the ill-informed war of aggression the Bush administration waged against Iraq has vastly increased the influence of Shiism and Iran in the region.
The continued presence of American troops and their heavily reinforced bases in Iraq threaten this return to relative stability. The refusal of the Shia government of Iraq to agree to an American Status of Forces Agreement--much desired by the Bush administration--that would exempt off-duty American troops from Iraqi law is actually a good sign for the future of Iraq.
In Afghanistan, our historically deaf generals and civilian strategists do not seem to understand that our defeat by the Afghan insurgents is inevitable. Since the time of Alexander the Great, no foreign intruder has ever prevailed over Afghan guerrillas defending their home turf. The first Anglo-Afghan War (1838-1842) marked a particularly humiliating defeat of British imperialism at the very height of English military power in the Victorian era. The Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989) resulted in a Russian defeat so demoralizing that it contributed significantly to the disintegration of the former Soviet Union in 1991. We are now on track to repeat virtually all the errors committed by previous invaders of Afghanistan over the centuries.
In the past year, perhaps most disastrously, we have carried our Afghan war into Pakistan, a relatively wealthy and sophisticated nuclear power that has long cooperated with us militarily. Our recent bungling brutality along the Afghan-Pakistan border threatens to radicalize the Pashtuns in both countries and advance the interests of radical Islam throughout the region. The United States is now identified in each country mainly with Hellfire missiles, unmanned drones, special operations raids and repeated incidents of the killing of innocent bystanders.
The brutal bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Pakistan''s capital, Islamabad, on September 20, 2008, was a powerful indicator of the spreading strength of virulent anti-American sentiment in the area. The hotel was a well-known watering hole for American Marines, Special Forces troops, and CIA agents. Our military activities in Pakistan have been as misguided as the Nixon-Kissinger invasion of Cambodia in 1970. The end result will almost surely be the same.
We should begin our disengagement from Afghanistan at once. We dislike the Taliban''s fundamentalist religious values, but the Afghan public, with its desperate desire for a return of law and order and the curbing of corruption, knows that the Taliban is the only political force in the country that has ever brought the opium trade under control. The Pakistanis and their effective army can defend their country from Taliban domination so long as we abandon the activities that are causing both Afghans and Pakistanis to see the Taliban as a lesser evil.
One of America''s greatest authorities on the defense budget, Winslow Wheeler, worked for thirty-one years for Republican members of the Senate and for the General Accounting Office on military expenditures. His conclusion, when it comes to the fiscal sanity of our military spending, is devastating:
class="blockquote" America''s defense budget is now larger in inflation-adjusted dollars than at any point since the end of World War II, and yet our Army has fewer combat brigades than at any point in that period; our Navy has fewer combat ships; and the Air Force has fewer combat aircraft. Our major equipment inventories for these major forces are older on average than any point since 1946--or in some cases, in our entire history.
This in itself is a national disgrace. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on present and future wars that have nothing to do with our national security is simply obscene. And yet Congress has been corrupted by the military-industrial complex into believing that by voting for more defense spending, they are supplying "jobs" for the economy. In fact, they are only diverting scarce resources from the desperately needed rebuilding of the American infrastructure and other crucial spending necessities into utterly wasteful munitions. If we cannot cut back our long-standing, ever-increasing military spending in a major way, then the bankruptcy of the United States is inevitable. As the current Wall Street meltdown has demonstrated, that is no longer an abstract possibility but a growing likelihood. We do not have much time left."
Deborah
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
defense is a legitimate service the federal government is spose to provide.
Using our money to bail out crooks is not.
There is no comparison its apple and oranges.
That they want to spend more on bailing crooks out than on defense for a year is treason!
Using our money to bail out crooks is not.
There is no comparison its apple and oranges.
That they want to spend more on bailing crooks out than on defense for a year is treason!
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
The plan that has worked the best for other countries is the Swedish plan which is more or less what I outlined above.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?em
The Japanese bailout was closer to the current plan and had to be reapplied several times costing trillions and delaying the recovery.
- Status
Celebrating Mothers And Mentors This Mother's Day
Celebrating Mothers And Mentors This Mother's Day - 05/05
Did You Miss the April 2024 Jewels of the Weeks?
Did You Miss the April 2024 Jewels of the Weeks? - 04/26
300x240.png)