5 ms·

So an administration that no one trusts can't pass a bill that would enact the largest transfer of wealth in history - from American people - to reckless financ

by cellis 18y ago

So an administration that no one trusts can't pass a bill that would enact the largest transfer of wealth in history - from American people - to reckless financial institutions that don't even trust themselves? Astounding!

arockwell 18y ago
That pretty much sums up my view point. I really don't understand much of what is going on (who really does honestly?), but I certainly know I can't trust anyone involved in this clusterfuck.
- timr 18y ago
  What's really interesting about this is (IMO) is that the Republicans are the ones largely responsible for the failure. The president's own party is revolting against him.
  - timr 18y ago
    It's a factually true statement, folks. Check the vote counts, and you'll see that it went down along party lines, with Republicans in the majority of the 'no' votes. In fact, over 67% of House Republicans voted against the bill. The White House lobbied heavily for the measure, and the Republicans in the House shot it down. That's interesting.
    - Prrometheus 18y ago
      Republicans in the House of Representatives have been the most Conservative caucus in any branch of government for at least the past few decades.
  - mnemonik 18y ago
    Perhaps they were gambling that enough dems would vote for it (because of the scare tactics of reading out the dows stock starting to crash right before the vote) so that it would pass, and later when the bailout became the political failure it was destined to become they could point to dems as responsible. American voters have a very short memory, and few check facts. I'm sure that the fact that this is so closely connected to Bush could be forgotten with an excellent mudslinging campaign. Then the Repubs would be able to take seats in the next congressional round of elections.
  - pragmatic 18y ago
    When you say the failure do you mean the failure to pass the bill (which is correct) or the failure of the financial institutions? House Republicans are the only group that are (fiscally) conservative anymore.
    - rrhyne 18y ago
      Uh, we started this administration with a Budget surplus, and now we are more in debt than ever. How exactly is that fiscally conservative? Not saying democrats are, but if that statment it ever was true, is definitely myth now.
      - nradov 18y ago
        There was no budget surplus when the current administration started. It only looked like a surplus if you ignored many of the real financial obligations.
SwellJoe 18y ago
What's astounding is that 205 of our very fine elected representatives thought it was a great idea. I think I need to dig up that list and send 20 bucks to each of their opponents in the upcoming election.
- bayareaguy 18y ago
  Here's the list - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-674 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-674 I'm so glad my representative (Barbara Lee) voted against this madness.
- nanijoe 18y ago
  My question though is, what is the alternative?
  - SwellJoe 18y ago
    A bit of honesty, maybe? The bill is duplicitous from the get go. It's entitled "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes"! If that kind of doublespeak don't get yer hackles up, I can't imagine what would. Some honest discussion, some real consequences for the people that caused this meltdown (and it was caused, it was not an accident), and some oversight in how a bailout proceeds. Perhaps we, as the folks footing the bill, would also like to know what the total is actually going to be before agreeing to it. My understanding of the bill (admittedly weak) is that it is a blank check for Paulson to distribute amongst his friends in the finance industry, with no oversight and no transparency about how it's going to be used. The fact that a bailout is being presented as "OMG! We have to do this now, imagine the consequences if we don't!" it has a strikingly similar ring to the "We have to invade Iraq now!" pose of a few years ago. I don't trust salesguys that insist I need to buy now, and I really don't trust politicians when they use the same tactic, especially when they're arguments are based on lies and misdirection. Yes, something must be done. Accountability would be a great start. Bringing some trust back into our finance industry would be a good way forward. A bailout? I dunno. Maybe there are other ways forward that directly help the people hurt rather than the millionaires and billionaires that caused it.
natrius 18y ago
If those financial institutions fail, they will have to be nationalized. Taxpayers will lose far more than $700 billion. The only way your characterization of the bailout as a net transfer of wealth is tenable is if you're against government intervention in financial crises altogether, which is silly. Unless you also think fractional reserve banking should be illegal, which is also silly.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- jodrellblank 18y ago
  Why is it silly to make conjouring money out of nowhere illegal? If there is only $100 in the world, and a bank gives it to you and you pay it back with interest, where does the interest come from? If there's $100 in the world, and a bank "gives $100" to 10 people, who all have to pay back $100 + interest, where does that come from? You have to borrow it from another bank. Total money in the world increases, the economy grows, but it's a con, a mirage, a convenient consensual fiction. A system based on eternal growth, which relies on pushing around ever increasing debt for its very existence, where repaying the total debt would require giving the banks back all the money they ever loaned plus all the stuff in the world to the value of the conjured extra. How is this not silly?
  - natrius 18y ago
    "If there's $100 in the world, and a bank "gives $100" to 10 people, who all have to pay back $100 + interest, where does that come from?" That's not how fractional reserve banking works. Banks don't lend more than they have in their vaults, they just have less in their vaults than the sum of their depositors' accounts. That's tangential to your main point, which seems to be an objection to a perpetually increasing amount of money that only exists as numbers in a computer backed by nothing. That only becomes a problem in a severe recession, where the rate of wealth creation slows so much that loans can't be paid back. The system breaks, and governments have to intervene to fix it. This isn't done by just giving banks money, as you suggest. The government typically takes over the banks. The proposed bailout involves buying assets, but it's still not giving banks money. That is only a problem if you think we'd be better off with the slower economic growth that would result from banning fractional reserve banking. We're not. A system that breaks on a regular basis sounds like a bad idea, but you still have to compare it with the alternative before you condemn it.

by cellis 18y ago

arockwell 18y ago

That pretty much sums up my view point. I really don't understand much of what is going on (who really does honestly?), but I certainly know I can't trust anyone involved in this clusterfuck.

timr 18y ago
What's really interesting about this is (IMO) is that the Republicans are the ones largely responsible for the failure. The president's own party is revolting against him.
- timr 18y ago
  It's a factually true statement, folks. Check the vote counts, and you'll see that it went down along party lines, with Republicans in the majority of the 'no' votes. In fact, over 67% of House Republicans voted against the bill. The White House lobbied heavily for the measure, and the Republicans in the House shot it down. That's interesting.
  - Prrometheus 18y ago
    Republicans in the House of Representatives have been the most Conservative caucus in any branch of government for at least the past few decades.
- mnemonik 18y ago
  Perhaps they were gambling that enough dems would vote for it (because of the scare tactics of reading out the dows stock starting to crash right before the vote) so that it would pass, and later when the bailout became the political failure it was destined to become they could point to dems as responsible. American voters have a very short memory, and few check facts. I'm sure that the fact that this is so closely connected to Bush could be forgotten with an excellent mudslinging campaign. Then the Repubs would be able to take seats in the next congressional round of elections.
- pragmatic 18y ago
  When you say the failure do you mean the failure to pass the bill (which is correct) or the failure of the financial institutions? House Republicans are the only group that are (fiscally) conservative anymore.
  - rrhyne 18y ago
    Uh, we started this administration with a Budget surplus, and now we are more in debt than ever. How exactly is that fiscally conservative? Not saying democrats are, but if that statment it ever was true, is definitely myth now.
    - nradov 18y ago
      There was no budget surplus when the current administration started. It only looked like a surplus if you ignored many of the real financial obligations.

SwellJoe 18y ago

What's astounding is that 205 of our very fine elected representatives thought it was a great idea. I think I need to dig up that list and send 20 bucks to each of their opponents in the upcoming election.

bayareaguy 18y ago
Here's the list - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-674 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-674 I'm so glad my representative (Barbara Lee) voted against this madness.
nanijoe 18y ago
My question though is, what is the alternative?
- SwellJoe 18y ago
  A bit of honesty, maybe? The bill is duplicitous from the get go. It's entitled "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes"! If that kind of doublespeak don't get yer hackles up, I can't imagine what would. Some honest discussion, some real consequences for the people that caused this meltdown (and it was caused, it was not an accident), and some oversight in how a bailout proceeds. Perhaps we, as the folks footing the bill, would also like to know what the total is actually going to be before agreeing to it. My understanding of the bill (admittedly weak) is that it is a blank check for Paulson to distribute amongst his friends in the finance industry, with no oversight and no transparency about how it's going to be used. The fact that a bailout is being presented as "OMG! We have to do this now, imagine the consequences if we don't!" it has a strikingly similar ring to the "We have to invade Iraq now!" pose of a few years ago. I don't trust salesguys that insist I need to buy now, and I really don't trust politicians when they use the same tactic, especially when they're arguments are based on lies and misdirection. Yes, something must be done. Accountability would be a great start. Bringing some trust back into our finance industry would be a good way forward. A bailout? I dunno. Maybe there are other ways forward that directly help the people hurt rather than the millionaires and billionaires that caused it.

natrius 18y ago

If those financial institutions fail, they will have to be nationalized. Taxpayers will lose far more than $700 billion. The only way your characterization of the bailout as a net transfer of wealth is tenable is if you're against government intervention in financial crises altogether, which is silly. Unless you also think fractional reserve banking should be illegal, which is also silly.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
jodrellblank 18y ago
Why is it silly to make conjouring money out of nowhere illegal? If there is only $100 in the world, and a bank gives it to you and you pay it back with interest, where does the interest come from? If there's $100 in the world, and a bank "gives $100" to 10 people, who all have to pay back $100 + interest, where does that come from? You have to borrow it from another bank. Total money in the world increases, the economy grows, but it's a con, a mirage, a convenient consensual fiction. A system based on eternal growth, which relies on pushing around ever increasing debt for its very existence, where repaying the total debt would require giving the banks back all the money they ever loaned plus all the stuff in the world to the value of the conjured extra. How is this not silly?
- natrius 18y ago
  "If there's $100 in the world, and a bank "gives $100" to 10 people, who all have to pay back $100 + interest, where does that come from?" That's not how fractional reserve banking works. Banks don't lend more than they have in their vaults, they just have less in their vaults than the sum of their depositors' accounts. That's tangential to your main point, which seems to be an objection to a perpetually increasing amount of money that only exists as numbers in a computer backed by nothing. That only becomes a problem in a severe recession, where the rate of wealth creation slows so much that loans can't be paid back. The system breaks, and governments have to intervene to fix it. This isn't done by just giving banks money, as you suggest. The government typically takes over the banks. The proposed bailout involves buying assets, but it's still not giving banks money. That is only a problem if you think we'd be better off with the slower economic growth that would result from banning fractional reserve banking. We're not. A system that breaks on a regular basis sounds like a bad idea, but you still have to compare it with the alternative before you condemn it.