demiurgent | In brief: the failure of the bailout

It will pass. It MUST pass. But it shows the shortsightedness and partisan bs in this, and I am not too terribly happy with it either.

Eh, I don't know. I agree a bailout is probably necessary but I'm deeply disturbed by the way it's being handled. According to the administration it's so completely vital that it needs to be passed IMMEDIATELY, and there's no time to discuss where the money's going to go, or why they're asking for 14 X the projected cost, or what happens to the surplus. However there's a clause that once the bill is passed there can't be any kind of review or oversight. I'm not reading that people aren't willing to pass a bailout but that the bailout needs some accountability before they pass it. Interestingly enough the corporate friendly politicians that are adamant the bill needs to be passed now now now don't seem to be willing to budge on that point.

I'm no financial whiz kid but I'm uncomfortable handing over 700 Billion dollars without any sort of oversight or review.

There is nothing more basic than that. Neither party would sacrifice personal power in order to save the economy of the United States of America.

You're wrong and there is nothing simple about it.

The Democrats could have forced this bill through by sheer numbers. However, it does no good if it gives Republicans ammunition to blame the coming economic woes on the Democrats, and potentially cost them control of the House and/or Senate later. Both parties needed to "own" this bill, and the Republicans are acting like a bunch of whiny schoolchildren after many concessions were made to them. This bill would not "save" the economy. The current problems are only the beginning. We are in deep shit. This bill was a band-aid to keep things going while more long-term solutions are created.

Would you have rather the Democrats sacrificed "personal power" for this bill, so that the Republicans could instantly repeal it and go back to the same policies that got us here in two or four years? There needs to be massive reform in the financial and housing markets, and I, for one, do not want the same people who got us into this mess in charge of getting us out of it.

*sighs* It looks like hell in a handbasket. I hope you guys get through this.

Dogg, we have two choices.

- We can get fucked NOW
- We can get fucked LATER, after the big fat cats have squeezed that extra last tenth of a cent from our wallets.

Either way, we get fucked.

I think you know where I stand on that. I have water, food and firearms to last me through any armageddon. You can try to marginalize it with words like "gorsh, they's all rich and it's not fair," but in the end the truth is simple: The CEOs are bailing out with GIGANTIC golden parachutes and leaving the public citizen to rot.

We can go after the fucks after it all burns down, in large mobs of pitchfork and torch bearing citizens, or we can farm it out and hand them scads more dough in hopes that human greed doesn't exist and trickle-down economics might suddenly, after decades, turn the corner and work.

Two words: FUCK and THAT.

Is it true that a lot of people don't know what's in store for them? Hells yeah. But I grew up eating out of garbage cans and going weeks without running water. It's about time we reminded people that the welfare system exists for a reason. Let THEM feel the brunt that I had to deal with for fifteen years of my life through no fault of my own. THEN see how much longer they'll let these gaseous bloatbags of money stand on their necks.

Fuck the bailout. Let 'em swing in the wind.

[edit]
And as just a reminder:
ANYONE who EVER tells you that deep economics, politics or military problems are "surprisingly simple" is either a liar or not looking at the big picture.

Well, hell, how about a bailout to the car manufacturers? The ones going broke because they spent a decade shoving SUVs down our throats?

Dude, I've already had my bank suddenly bounce a ton of checks and stick me with the fees because it's in collapse, then get sold out from underneath me by the government.

It's all well and good to figure canned goods and firearms will get you through ten years of breadlines. I'd sort of like society not to go to Hell.

I'm entirely okay with CEO golden parachutes being set on fire while they're thrown out of the plane, but if it's a difference between a collapse of the financial infrastructure and a hell of a lot of people suffering and letting a greedy son of bitch get away with it? I'll sacrifice the schadenfreude happily enough.

The big picture, right now, is that revenge, pique, and re-election aren't good enough reasons not to act before it's too late to help as many people as possible.

Too right. But it was a close call. I was watching the roll call on CSPAN and for a while it looked like it was going to pass. What gets me is the Republicans who claim they were ready to vote Yay until Nancy Pelosi said some mean things about their President. Talk about thin skins!

It's not that simple. The bailout, as proposed, really isn't going to help that much. It will buy immediate liquidity, but do nothing to shore up the next wave of bad debt, nor help save neighborhoods from the domino effect of foreclosure. It buys immediate liquidity, but does nothing for long-term stability.

I thought it was incredibly brave to vote against it. It's unpopular for a reason.

I agree with you. I want a buy-up not a bailout. What's that mean? A buy-up of questionable assets so the banks can get on with banking, a long holding period, and resale of the assets left standing in X years, at a profit. That is what the "bailout" plan is at heart, and it would probably do the country a lot of good.

What I don't expect is for the gov to hold the assets long enough after they start looking like the bad bits have shaken out. I expect both parties to have their backers start slavering over the unrealized potential, and call for early sale under the rubric of miscellaneous political mantras.

Got to say, our senators did make me kind of proud this time around. Your rep and mine... not so much.

My rep was the only Houston-area rep to vote yes- and that, I'm certain, is solely because he's a complete toady to Dubya and Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Republican machine.

I'm -still- voting against him in November.

One of my big issues with the bailout - and the one I'm glad that it was voted down for - was the amount of power this would have dumped in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury. There was a great deal of weasel language in it - the kind that goes "and there will be changes to be enumerated later to deal with the penalties/regulations for this situation by the Secretary of the Treasury", and I don't want that kind of naked power grab.

Something needed to be done to head that off, and the bill as written left out too much required how-to information to pass as written.

I work for one of those Wall Street firms - you may have seen them on the news today licking their lips and saying 'Mmm, Wachovia!" - so I have a vested interest in things NOT collapsing. At the same time, I have a vested interest as an American citizen to not support the growth of the Imperial Presidency As It Stands Today.

I agree. If we've learned anything from this administration, it should be "don't act until a large body of relevant information is available for public scrutiny". Businesses petitioning for relief need to explain what their needs are and why they know that.

It's called creative destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction) and it's a necessary, if unpleasant, part of the economic cycle. It can't be put off forever, and the longer you do put it off, the worse it will be when it arrives.

If people who make bad investment decisions are given more money to keep their businesses from failing, how likely is it that they will use that money wisely?

In other words, the bailout might not have really helped the economy anyway (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPHUtFxaJ8M).

I don't expect to enjoy the next ten years, but I wasn't planning to. I've seen this coming since the nineties. If you want to blame somebody, try this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointy-Haired_Boss). I've long known that with him running things, what is happening now would happen sooner or later.

It's not schadenfreude.

There is no way this system is going to change unless we, the people, change it. Period. Giving these obese fucking maggots another $700 billion might placate a few for a bit, but it's like giving extra tea to the colonists while the British soldiers are raping your daughters in the alleys. Eventually the simple truth that this shit is fucked up to the point that we can't unfuck it without blood will drill its way into everyone's head. Farming it out will only make it worse.

Where do you think this $700 billion will go? Into the citizens' hands, after it trickles through layer on layer of seive from the douchebags on high? Or will it just plump the coffers of those who are already draining our economy for personal gain? The only thing the $700 billion will do is allow these predatory lenders to continue lending for a little while.

THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN. The Bailout does nothing but allow the same broken system to continue for what? A year? Six months? Worse, as long as it continues, the same fucking leeches on our economy will continue to profit.

If it means I have to tighten my belt, and so do 100,000 neighbors, in order to fucking FIX this system, so BE it. Last time I checked, THAT was the definition of Patriotism - not cowering in the corner and slicing off little pieces of yourself to feed the shitheads who guided you wrong in the first place.

Fuck fear and fuck complacency. And more than anything, FUCK the Bailout. Let 'em burn.

As demiurgent said, enjoy the next ten years. I know I won't, being on a fixed income, dependent upon the health and well-being of Wall Street. This new bill incorporated, among other things, oversight, additional help for families who may yet lose their homes, and elimination of "golden parachutes." It may not be perfect, but it's a start. I think it was cowardly to vote against it.

You and I, we see alike.

If we look at the Great Depression -- and let's not kid ourselves, that's where we're heading. Not 'a long term recession.' We're heading to apple sellers and breadlines here -- people didn't tighten their belts. They died. People starved to death. It took a World War to get us out of an economic fugue shocking in its profundity.

I agree. The system is broken. Completely broken. And we're not looking at shoring it up here. There is no area where nationalizing the fucking real estate economy heads that way.

Right now, without the bailout? Things fail, the government forecloses on them, and then sells them to other companies at pennies on the dollar. You think JP Morgan/Chase is bemoaning the economy? They just got WaMu for a fucking song. Every failed mortgage, every foreclosed house, every bad asset will ultimately end up going somewhere.

So let 'em burn? Go for it. And in ten years, when we claw our way out, the top fifteen percent who own everything will have shrunk to the top three percent who own everything, and that three percent will make King George look sane. Second verse, worse than the first.

You think this will lead to people marching into the streets with guns demanding their freedom back? The way it did in Florida in 2000, or after the Patriot Act, or after the suspension of Habias Corpus? Hell, I advocated for Northeast Secession years ago, but it didn't happen and it's not going to happen in six months. But a lot of poor people are going to lose their homes and their lives in the process.

The folks who won't die? Who'll have a few bad weeks and then go on to the next thing or at the least stay pretty where they are? They're the ones you want to burn. I want them to burn too, but they won't. They'll do just fine.

At the risk of getting called an idiot, yet again, I'll comment that while I agree that the bailout may be needed, I am not sure these are the bailouts you are looking for (waves jedi hand).

Washington Mutual? They tank, even when they have credit card divisions that make tons of money? Dude, that should tell you they are all full of the stupid, and maybe its a good idea they get bought out.

I haven't seen any of these firms get shuttered, or closed down permanently. They are all getting bought out by other firms that invested more wisely, aren't they?

Selfish greedy bastards that are being asked to help out other selfish greedy bastards that helped pay for them to get elected and enjoy lifetime benefits you and I can not dream of. Stocks fall, everyone dies. Roll up new characters.

And will this save the economy of America?
Or does it save the economy of private businesses, at the cost of the economy of America? Where is the $700 Billion coming from? Who is gonna pay it back? And then who is going to bail out the Social Security program? China?

I am just not convinced that this was the last best solution.
I can bet that the hue and cry that gets raised from regular folks may actually get Bailout Version 2 written up, and passed quicker.

It's not brave to vote against something your constituents hate. It's easy to do that, because then you can say "I'm listening to you."

It's brave to say "yeah, I know you don't like this. I don't like it too, but it's not my job to be liked."

If the center falls out, then long term stability isn't an issue. This is at best a firebreak and a start, but it's still a firebreak and a start. Without it, or something really like it, we go from zero to fucked really, really quickly.

See, I really don't know how I feel about this.

First: yes, we need to do something - most of the experts agree, and when most of the experts agree, it's crazy not to.

But ... Paulson's plan? The three page grant proposal (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/09/how-not-to-appl.html) saying "gimme $700 000 000 000 or your economy will fall apart (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/09/panic-therefore.html)"? "Why $700 000 000 000? - I dunno, I just wanted to name a big number (http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/23/bailout-paulson-congress-biz-beltway-cx_jz_bw_0923bailout.html)"? Why should we think this random panic-mode legislative ejaculation is the best option we can come up with?

(Yeah, the House Republican plan is worse. Still.)

I'll look at how my representative voted, just so I know, but I can't say whether I support this or not. However ominous things look (http://www.threepanelsoul.com/view.php?date=2008-09-22), if we bankrupt the government for nothing, we're making it worse.

Ditto.

If someone proves he can't handle your money, you don't give him more money. You let him go bankrupt and wait for someone else to pick up the pieces.

If you give him more money, he's going to go bankrupt later instead, and now you don't have the money you gave him.

Bernanke's out in four months. God only knows who will follow-- and if it's Phil fucking Gramm, he doesn't have the sense of responsibility or the basic economic knowledge to handle this mess in any sane fashion.

Nope, it wasn't the "last best solution." But it was a heck of a lot better than the original proposal, and it was A START. This would be fun to watch if it weren't so scary. I hope you're right about the regular folks. From what I've been reading, most of 'em thought it was a good idea. But you can't trust the sources. We'll just have to wait and see.

You need to read Ms. Shales' The Forgotten Man (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060936428/).

Needless to say, if you think the collapse in 1929 caused the Great Depression by itself, you are delusional. If we can avoid passing a nouveau Smoot-Hawley we'll be fine by the end of 2009.

If we were really worried about saving the Economy, rather than saving Wall St., wouldn't we build a firewall? Wouldn't we be trying to intervene in the markets that need Wall Street, rather than trying to save Wall Street directly?

If the Fed, or the Treasury said, "Fuck it, y'all can sort yourselves out, we're getting into the commercial paper market, and we're going to undercut your rates" It'd be a more efficient use of 700 billion, more profitable, and it'd punish those that need it.

In brief: the failure of the bailout

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

UMmmm. Nah.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: UMmmm. Nah.

no subject