4 ms·

And if other banks look like they'll fold, expect the government to throw more money at the problem than just FDIC insurance dough. A GOVERNMENT CANNOT CONTROL

And if other banks look like they'll fold, expect the government to throw more money at the problem than just FDIC insurance dough. A GOVERNMENT CANNOT CONTROL THE FREE MARKET. IT WILL ALWAYS FAIL. It's like a drunk trying to stay on the road who overcompensates for every mistake until he zooms into a ditch. Bad lenders and dim-witted/confused borrowers screw one another? Then dilute the dollar. "Borrow" a trillion fucking dollars that you don't have to sedate the market. Oh, that one will work great. I say, just let it be, before this thing spirals out of control. That $700B would do plenty to alleviate poverty for anyone who is, in fact, financially ruined by failing lenders. We'll let the entrenched poor rot for decades, but bail out the rich in a week. I'm outright disgusted. What can be done? I heard there was a small protest in NYC yesterday, maybe we'll have one in DC.

ars 18y ago
You are very very badly informed! The bailout will mean a 100% loss for all the "rich" people. It's the "poor" that will win - they borrowed money, and don't have to pay it back.
- thomasmallen 18y ago
  And you're very shortsighted! As are many people who believe that throwing money at the problem is the answer. This will just allow these unscrupulous lenders to maintain business as usual (assuming the companies are re-sold a few years down the road, which is the plan). That $700B will have to come from somewhere, and that place is nowhere. This may be disastrous for the economy. And you misquoted me, leaving off "entrenched" in "entrenched poor." If you can buy a house, I have news for you, you are not a member of the entrenched poor. The middle and lower-middle classes were able to buy real estate like never before, and they will be bailed out. Why, I ask, is rescuing new homeowners a priority now, when the third-world poverty of the inner city and rust-belt country is viewed as some incurable ailment? We know damn well why: Because this coincides with saving the bankers' asses.
  - ars 18y ago
    >This will just allow these unscrupulous lenders to maintain business as usual How will that happen when they won't exist anymore? >That $700B will have to come from somewhere No it won't. The number is the total debt the US would be on the hook for - if people pay off their loans, then the US won't have to spend any of it. What exactly do you want to do about the "entrenched poor"? Give them presents? This has nothing to do with them. I don't know if the bailout is a good idea or not, I haven't looked at it in detail, but it's not as bad as you are making it out to be.
    - thomasmallen 18y ago
      Yes, we should be Santa Claus and give them presents. I'll turn elsewhere for a serious debate. If you think that's the only way the government could help the poor, or that the big-wigs who caused this mess will just vanish as their companies are bought out, you've got another thing coming.
      - ars 18y ago
        That's exactly my point! They won't vanish, so bailing them out is not going to cause them to stick around. They'll stay either way. Basically I'm saying that hoping we'll get rid of bad managers is a bad reason to be opposed to the bailout. If you have ideas for what to do for the poor post them. I don't. But I do know that keeping some companies alive will do more to help people then giving the money to poor people will.
    - robak 18y ago
      > What exactly do you want to do about the "entrenched poor"? Give them presents? No let's give them to multi-billion corporations and banks. There is no capitalism in the US anymore. Bad decisions at the corporate level are not being allowed to be punished by Market. Instead Market is manipulated, so we all get punished. This my friend is called SOCIALISM. Even freakin' swedish don't bail out their business. This nation became a parody of values it used to represent.
      - 18y ago

ars 18y ago

You are very very badly informed! The bailout will mean a 100% loss for all the "rich" people. It's the "poor" that will win - they borrowed money, and don't have to pay it back.

thomasmallen 18y ago
And you're very shortsighted! As are many people who believe that throwing money at the problem is the answer. This will just allow these unscrupulous lenders to maintain business as usual (assuming the companies are re-sold a few years down the road, which is the plan). That $700B will have to come from somewhere, and that place is nowhere. This may be disastrous for the economy. And you misquoted me, leaving off "entrenched" in "entrenched poor." If you can buy a house, I have news for you, you are not a member of the entrenched poor. The middle and lower-middle classes were able to buy real estate like never before, and they will be bailed out. Why, I ask, is rescuing new homeowners a priority now, when the third-world poverty of the inner city and rust-belt country is viewed as some incurable ailment? We know damn well why: Because this coincides with saving the bankers' asses.
- ars 18y ago
  >This will just allow these unscrupulous lenders to maintain business as usual How will that happen when they won't exist anymore? >That $700B will have to come from somewhere No it won't. The number is the total debt the US would be on the hook for - if people pay off their loans, then the US won't have to spend any of it. What exactly do you want to do about the "entrenched poor"? Give them presents? This has nothing to do with them. I don't know if the bailout is a good idea or not, I haven't looked at it in detail, but it's not as bad as you are making it out to be.
  - thomasmallen 18y ago
    Yes, we should be Santa Claus and give them presents. I'll turn elsewhere for a serious debate. If you think that's the only way the government could help the poor, or that the big-wigs who caused this mess will just vanish as their companies are bought out, you've got another thing coming.
    - ars 18y ago
      That's exactly my point! They won't vanish, so bailing them out is not going to cause them to stick around. They'll stay either way. Basically I'm saying that hoping we'll get rid of bad managers is a bad reason to be opposed to the bailout. If you have ideas for what to do for the poor post them. I don't. But I do know that keeping some companies alive will do more to help people then giving the money to poor people will.
  - robak 18y ago
    > What exactly do you want to do about the "entrenched poor"? Give them presents? No let's give them to multi-billion corporations and banks. There is no capitalism in the US anymore. Bad decisions at the corporate level are not being allowed to be punished by Market. Instead Market is manipulated, so we all get punished. This my friend is called SOCIALISM. Even freakin' swedish don't bail out their business. This nation became a parody of values it used to represent.
    - 18y ago