the bailout

godix · Post by **godix** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:07 pm

I support a bailout of the financial institutions provided in the very same bill are limits of company finances for any company that accepts, including CEO pay/bonuses but far more extensive than that, and provisions for putting in place regulation to stop this from happening again.

Although from what I can tell the problem really wasn't that there wasn't regulation, it was that the politicians and regulators viewed the housing bubble as a good thing instead of a problem that needed dealt with. Considering the housing bubble is, in part, what prevented the economy from going to hell right after 9/11 they may have even been right in that view.

I do not support bailout for homeowners. If the fuckers can't afford to own a house then they shouldn't own a house. *I* don't own a house because I knew I couldn't pay for it. I really really don't want to have to reward sheer fucking stupidity, especially if it requires me buying for others what I can't afford to buy for myself.

I wouldn't change my vote for a politician disagreeing with me on this, but I would change it for a politician who's obviously just trying to buy off votes this way. Assuming, of course, there actually is another politician not buying off votes that I could support. That's probably not a valid assumption at the moment.

NS · Post by NS » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:20 pm

godix wrote: I do not support bailout for homeowners. If the fuckers can't afford to own a house then they shouldn't own a house. *I* don't own a house because I knew I couldn't pay for it. I really really don't want to have to reward sheer fucking stupidity, especially if it requires me buying for others what I can't afford to buy for myself.

This point came up in a discussion we had in my school's world affairs class, and I couldn't agree more.

Pwolf · Post by **Pwolf** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:13 pm

godix wrote: I do not support bailout for homeowners. If the fuckers can't afford to own a house then they shouldn't own a house. *I* don't own a house because I knew I couldn't pay for it. I really really don't want to have to reward sheer fucking stupidity, especially if it requires me buying for others what I can't afford to buy for myself.

x2... Even though my mother lost her house due to foreclosure, she lost it because her real estate business went under due to the housing mess.

I'd like to take the same stance against the banks for even agreeing to these fucked up loans and letting people who can't afford a house, get one. But, I'd have to agree with chang on this one... I think no bailout would screw everyone not just the banks.

Org Profile · Post by **Vlad G Pohnert** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:29 pm

Give me the Bailout money, for that much cash I'll be sure to fix all of America's problems

Vlad

guy07 · Post by **guy07** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:47 pm

Vlad G Pohnert wrote:Give me the Bailout money, for that much cash I'll be sure to fix all of America's problems

It wouldn't cost THAT much to buy a nuke just large enough to take out D.C.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:49 am

BasharOfTheAges wrote:The markets rebounded pretty well today for impending doom.

I think we honestly need to let this play out. Our economy is all smoke and mirrors at this point and the constant, rapid growth of the past 20 years is not a feasible long-term thing. It can't go on indefinitely, especially when so much of it was built on money that isn't real and debts that can never be repaid.

It doesn't help when a debate that should center around logic has so much emotion tied to it. Nobody wants to look like the bad guy for saying "well, we were stupid and should probably have to pay for it sometime - either do it now or have it be 10x worse in a decade or two."

There's a difference between disagreeing with rapid growth/expansion and having NO growth (or very little).

No banks means no loans for even smaller businesses (not just dotcoms and stuff...mom and pop stores included). That also means less loans to home owners who AREN'T risky (They are no viewed as risky...nearly all loans are). That will bring the economy to a HALT, not slow it down. Bad economy = less jobs. Less jobs = more people in poverty...and on and on.

There's a HUGE difference and I'm surprised anyone would surprise NO growth and NO lending.

gl; hf
gg US economy

downwithpants · Post by **downwithpants** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:25 am

oh the economy will come back in 4-5 years, even if we don't bail out banks/financial institutions and more go under (provided they don't all go under). but it's going to bring heavy costs associated with the period of high unemployment and costs associated with the turnover of employees and companies and perhaps entire industries (who's going to trust their money with investment banks in the future?). and if you're planning on retiring on your 401k the next few years, youre quite boned.

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:34 pm

dwchang wrote:There's a difference between disagreeing with rapid growth/expansion and having NO growth (or very little).

It's not so much the growth that I disagree with - more the fact that it's based on fallacies and illusions that everything is alright. Banks multiplied money for a long time over and over again, then they loaned that money out - enabling (in the context of what you do to someone by ignoring their drug problem) people to buy ridiculously expensive homes they couldn't ever afford. Now they don't actually have a leg to stand on when the curtain was pulled aside, it looks dire - partly because it is and partly because it opens the eyes of the average person to question our money further. And questioning things that have no basis in reality (like our money) leads to paradox.

I know what the consequences of not acting are (my father is a year away from retirement and he had lots of his 401K money pilled up in the S&P), but I don't think it makes economic sense to let fear of the consequences completely direct our course.

Ultimately, any congressman that opposes this looks bad to Joe Q Public, and that's all that really matters to them. Hopefully the brashness of the riders on this round2 bill will allow them to point to the riders when they're asked why they didn't vote one way or another. Gotta pull some slight-of-hand to impart any sort of deep thinking into the political process...

Sukunai · Post by **Sukunai** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:53 am

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Stupid greed started the mess, and bailing out stupid greed won't really fix it.

Enjoy being taxed to oblivion, because that money is coming out of your pockets.

Damned glad I am not American right now.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:31 pm

Sukunai wrote:Two wrongs don't make a right.

Stupid greed started the mess, and bailing out stupid greed won't really fix it.

Enjoy being taxed to oblivion, because that money is coming out of your pockets.

Damned glad I am not American right now.

Yeah the second wrong would be NOT helping out EVERYONE and not bailing them out.

Did you not read anything Jasper, dwp or I even wrote? The second wrong would be preventing US citizens who want to buy a home, small business who want to expand, etc. from getting loans and being laid off. The US economy will come to a screeching halt and the global economy will also be boned. Have you not watched the Japanese and UK markets as well? It's all related.

No borrowing/credit = little to no growth which in turn leads to higher unemployment, less taxable income for the government and so on and so forth. The things you've seen the last few weeks is FAR from the last dominoes to fall. Financial people aren't *all* idiots. There's a reason markets are tumbling and it's not based on nothing.

Also it's not money out of our pockets or higher taxes. If Bush, Obama or McCain said that they would be totally screwed in the polls. They're just printing more money and will *hopefully* cut spending and increase the national debt. In time, the hope is we will get the money back that we lent and we might even make a profit. It *is* American taxpayer money, but not MORE taxpayer money and more taxes. It sounds kind of silly, but we have a HUGE national debt and crazy spending for a reason...

Again, if either McCain or Obama were raising taxes for this, they'd have TANKED in the polls. They'll figure another way to do it (even if they haven't told us -_-).