RE: Why the bailout at all ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/28/2008 10:15:41 PM)

The problem is from what I've been reading that the 700 billion dollar plan will change nothing, in the long term. As the amount of debt in proportion to the 700 billion is not enough to advert the crisis, therefore the conclusion is that the 700 billion is more of a ploy to save select banks, and financials, rather than advert economic adversity for the general populace.

The figures I'm reading are indicating to truly "save" the system it would take several fold that amount, which is an impossible amount of risk for the government to consume, as it would truly send us into a financial tailspin. This appears to be a band-aid, that will not correct anything in the longterm, as in order to correct it, trillions of dollars of leveraged investments need to be unwound. The actual mortgages, are not the problem it is the leveraging of that "value", which is now disappearing.

In the end I think it is akin, to "the titanic is sinking", and someone suggesting saving the richest and most powerful in a lifeboat, will somehow keep the whole ship afloat.

Beyond that there really is no basis for them to be doing this anyway.



JerryFrankster -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/28/2008 10:19:55 PM)

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? … Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73itui30qIE


Well... I'm sold, but will it also protect us from witches?



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/28/2008 10:28:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JerryFrankster

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? … Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73itui30qIE


Well... I'm sold, but will it also protect us from witches?



Yep, first time I heard Palin in a scripted in environment, I thought she might be okay. Everytime, she is unscripted I like her less and less. Now, I really think she has zero idea what she is talking about on anything. My view she is the least qualified of all four candidates. She's cute, that's about it.



JerryFrankster -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/28/2008 11:05:23 PM)

Is it too late to get Michael Palin in as a substitute?



MmeGigs -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/29/2008 3:50:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout
You've got this partly right, but what you missed is that because of these risky securities, billions of dollars in investment money has been taken out of investment banks and hedge funds as people flee the risk. That run on these banks is what is causing them to fail. It also means that these banks now have no cash to lend out, which further exacerbates the problem because homeowners can't refinance and get out from under their variable rate mortgage.


I didn't miss this.  There's certainly going to be some pain with all of this, but I'd like us to be feeling it now, when we know why it's happening and will stay focused on doing something real about it.  I think we need the huge societal kick in the ass to get our priorities refocused. 




UncleNasty -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/29/2008 6:42:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Never in the history of man have so few,with so little,tried to grab so much from so many......


That isn't actually true, though I do appreciate your thinking. Many others have made comments/statements about various oracles of financial wisdom seeing this coming several years ago, based on the current or recent "system" of mortgages, securitzation, CDO's and MBS's, etc. That isn't the complete truth either.

The truth is that for nearly 100 years this is really the only place we've been headed, and the only place we could end up. History simply provides no examples of a country/society that debauches its honest money into fiat currency surviving. In fact it points to the opposite - every instance of this type of monetary debauchery leads to the failure of that country/society.

It is happening at this point, and in these ways, not simply because of the instant dishonesty and illegality, but because our entire monetary system is based completely on dishonesty and illegality.

Our founders knew better. They eschewed privately owned central banks, and rightly so. It was, and has been, a struggle against control and issuance of money and credit. The US Constitution included these sage words:

Article 1 Section 8
Congress shall have the power to... coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Article 1 Section 10
No State shall.... make anything but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

This is not an overly simplistic view. Neither is it full of "patriot" idiocy or bullshit. It is foundational. It is essential. It is crucial.

I repeat, history provides no example of a country or society that debauches its honest money into fiat currency maintaining its health, growth and power.

A study of events in the past few years, as an effort to understand the current state, is not sufficient. A study of our present monetary system since its inception (1913)is really the only way to understand, diagnose and solve the current crisis.

Cecil Rhodes is quote as saying "Our goal is to gradually absorb the wealth of the world." One of the early Rothchilds said words to the effect of I care not who governs or writes the laws, give me control of the money supply and I'll have all the power.

Uncle Nasty




Termyn8or -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/29/2008 8:25:37 AM)

While I have enjoyed reading the conjecture, the hyperbole and actually some sound thinking, the original question still remains, why ?

What EXACTLY happens to the commoner if the bailout simply doesn't happen.

I already know the major points of it, certain investments will fail and yes that will affect people directly throught the loss if funding for their pension program. Everybody who makes money off of money will lose.

I say it's about time.

Anyone who really works is not likely to see much of a problem. Any business actually successful today obviously has a marketable product, all they have to do is keep producing it.

When you invest in the markets, whether it is futures, stocks or whatever, you make yourself a moneylender. As such you should be prepared for the possibility that you might not get your money back.

People don't realize that having a 401K makes them a moneylender, even buying penny stocks makes you a moneylender.

T



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/29/2008 8:42:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

While I have enjoyed reading the conjecture, the hyperbole and actually some sound thinking, the original question still remains, why ?

What EXACTLY happens to the commoner if the bailout simply doesn't happen.

I already know the major points of it, certain investments will fail and yes that will affect people directly throught the loss if funding for their pension program. Everybody who makes money off of money will lose.

I say it's about time.

Anyone who really works is not likely to see much of a problem. Any business actually successful today obviously has a marketable product, all they have to do is keep producing it.

When you invest in the markets, whether it is futures, stocks or whatever, you make yourself a moneylender. As such you should be prepared for the possibility that you might not get your money back.

People don't realize that having a 401K makes them a moneylender, even buying penny stocks makes you a moneylender.

T


I think people that produce something of value, will be okay no matter what. They will suffer in the short run, but will gain power not lose power in the aftermath. Saving the system keeps the power in the hands of speculators and banks, encourages debt, and all sorts of destructive behavour.

Let the banks fail, if you are doing something of value, and not leeching the system, or are not overleveraged yourself, you'll come out of it stronger in the end. If you are in debt to your eyes, well, you are the same as WallStreet, and deserve to fail. If you lose your job because of the fallout, blame your company for over relying on credit and not building their cash reserves. It's greed that made them fail.

The solution is and always will be not to encourage a debt laden society and business model, that is a stable path. We encourage consumption, and debt, the public embraces the concept as well. So, the deck needs reshuffled from time to time, so be it.

Why do you think really old people that lived through the great depression are so cheap. Well, alot of them, because they saw the real destruction that results from watton financial practices, and decided overconsumption was not worth the risk.

I'm more against this meddling all the time, at first I was undecided, though gut reaction was against it, the more I try to find information on it, the less it makes sense.





rulemylife -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/29/2008 9:26:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

While I have enjoyed reading the conjecture, the hyperbole and actually some sound thinking, the original question still remains, why?

T



All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national greed. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to greed surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of the wealthy, year in and year out, "rejoicing in avarice; patient in incompetence," a struggle against the common man.
Can we forge against those less fortunate a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all more prosperous? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending capitalism in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light up the financial markets and all who serve it. And the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what Wall Street can do for you; ask what you can do for Wall Street.
 



rulemylife -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/29/2008 9:47:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

The problem is from what I've been reading that the 700 billion dollar plan will change nothing, in the long term. As the amount of debt in proportion to the 700 billion is not enough to advert the crisis, therefore the conclusion is that the 700 billion is more of a ploy to save select banks, and financials, rather than advert economic adversity for the general populace.

The figures I'm reading are indicating to truly "save" the system it would take several fold that amount, which is an impossible amount of risk for the government to consume, as it would truly send us into a financial tailspin. This appears to be a band-aid, that will not correct anything in the longterm, as in order to correct it, trillions of dollars of leveraged investments need to be unwound. The actual mortgages, are not the problem it is the leveraging of that "value", which is now disappearing.

In the end I think it is akin, to "the titanic is sinking", and someone suggesting saving the richest and most powerful in a lifeboat, will somehow keep the whole ship afloat.

Beyond that there really is no basis for them to be doing this anyway.



Without you posting the figures you are reading, it's impossible to debate, no?

What I think is you really don't have an argument but you just don't like the idea.

Which is fine.

I don't like the idea either, but if you really look at the figures and financials involved you can't help but see it as necessary.

I don't like going to the dentist either, but I do it because I rather take a little pain now then have my teeth fall out later. 



Termyn8or -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/29/2008 10:21:05 AM)

rulem, I am already doing what I can, at least as far as I can see. I do not engage in this rampant consumerism. Not counting those "use-up-ables" like food, beer, food, toilet paper, I can count on one hand my purchases of anything brand new in the last ten years.

I am "on the books" for a new PC a couple years ago because I used my card to get my Father a computer. That means nothing because he paid it off. My TV is twenty years old, and while I did get a box to put the PC screen on it, I am not getting a digital convertor box. I bought my speakers about ten years ago when they were ten years old, for MSRP, yes they are that good. I will have to buy a PC soon but if you think I am just walking into Best Buy or something you are mistaken. There is not a vehicle less than 13 years old in my driveway and I like it that way.

I have never once in my life rented a DVD, and the only way I rented VHS tapes is because I was affiliated with the owner of one of those shops, which was cool because I could get whatever I want for free for as long as I want. I would return tapes a minth later, still no charge. Once in a while the guy would come get one, because it was a newer release and he was out of copies of it. That rarely happened because I was never into new movies. One time he shows up and I had put his tapes with mine, and I said that since I haven't wached them in awhile I should give them all back. So I grabbed them out, and got a corresponding number of those cases and gave them to him. Later he calls up and "I don't have the box for these ones, are you sure you got them from me ?". It seems I gave him a couple of my tapes by mistake ! L-O-L. (I told them to keep them and see if they rent)

OK, about twenty years ago I bought a brand new cassette deck.

Avoiding consumerism is a state of mind. Yes I bought things in the past, but I have NEVER had any of my utilities shut off for non-payment. I know what comes first. While I admit I did get evicted once for non-payment, I already planned to move. The last apartment building I lived in decided to go condo, and they wanted $70,000 per suite. I told them I would give them that for four of them, two up, two down. I would knock out the walls and install a staircase and make it WORTH the money. Sans the $280,000 my plan to move went smoothly.

Sheeple have been trained a certain way, and all for money. I know people who will gladly give up big money to a corporation but not even give you a cigarette. I am the opposite. Big money is going to work for every dime they get out of me, but with friends and family I am seen as generous, perhaps to a fault.

My "training" happened in real life. I bought a business and after everything was paid and we could open the door, the was $83 left. Total. Many people think that stressful, wanna know what I said ? "There is nothing in this place for sale for less that $17". That way I could make change for a hundred.

I tell people I need nothing. Somewhat true. Sometimes Mom calls and says she has some extra blankets or something, in fact I could use some towels right now. I still have a big box of curtains, Ma, how many windows do you think I have ?

You see, I need nothing. I have identified the difference between want and need. Yes I need beer, and/or something alse I deem fit to drink, I need food. I need my utilities on and I need a way to get to work. Parties and fun even, I have a blast with my friends, and usually they come to me. Believe it or not, some of the best times are just "kickin it" with one dude.

I literally need nothing right now. How about you ?

T



slvemike4u -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/29/2008 11:08:34 AM)

Looks like the bill is dead in the water.If so and if this is actually without a doubt necessary,than Bush and his cohorts have no one but themselves to blame,lies about wmd and ties to 9/11 have come home to roost.This President does not have the capitol political or otherwise to do those things that might actually be needed.
And that is a damm shame.



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/29/2008 11:37:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

The problem is from what I've been reading that the 700 billion dollar plan will change nothing, in the long term. As the amount of debt in proportion to the 700 billion is not enough to advert the crisis, therefore the conclusion is that the 700 billion is more of a ploy to save select banks, and financials, rather than advert economic adversity for the general populace.

The figures I'm reading are indicating to truly "save" the system it would take several fold that amount, which is an impossible amount of risk for the government to consume, as it would truly send us into a financial tailspin. This appears to be a band-aid, that will not correct anything in the longterm, as in order to correct it, trillions of dollars of leveraged investments need to be unwound. The actual mortgages, are not the problem it is the leveraging of that "value", which is now disappearing.

In the end I think it is akin, to "the titanic is sinking", and someone suggesting saving the richest and most powerful in a lifeboat, will somehow keep the whole ship afloat.

Beyond that there really is no basis for them to be doing this anyway.



Without you posting the figures you are reading, it's impossible to debate, no?

What I think is you really don't have an argument but you just don't like the idea.

Which is fine.

I don't like the idea either, but if you really look at the figures and financials involved you can't help but see it as necessary.

I don't like going to the dentist either, but I do it because I rather take a little pain now then have my teeth fall out later. 


What, I've been doing is reading, and watching, what those that predicted this scenario say. Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, among others, I've probably read a 100 articles and watched dozens of videos of peoples opinions. True enough I don't have a detailed accounting, no one does. But those that foresaw this mess years ago, and there numbers, which I'm more apt to trust, because they've been right, do indicate that the 700 billion would not be enough. There is no way I'm going to compile all the reading I've been doing. You can have your opinion, and believe those that have been wrong throughout this period if you like. But everyone that has been right, predicting this years ago, says it is not enough. I tend to believe the numbers of those that show a record of accuracy, as opposed to Bernanke and Paulson.

A similiar question could be asked of you, why do think 700 billion would be enough?



UncleNasty -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/29/2008 12:54:14 PM)


[/quote]

What, I've been doing is reading, and watching, what those that predicted this scenario say. Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, among others, I've probably read a 100 articles and watched dozens of videos of peoples opinions. True enough I don't have a detailed accounting, no one does. But those that foresaw this mess years ago, and there numbers, which I'm more apt to trust, because they've been right, do indicate that the 700 billion would not be enough. There is no way I'm going to compile all the reading I've been doing. You can have your opinion, and believe those that have been wrong throughout this period if you like. But everyone that has been right, predicting this years ago, says it is not enough. I tend to believe the numbers of those that show a record of accuracy, as opposed to Bernanke and Paulson.

A similiar question could be asked of you, why do think 700 billion would be enough?

[/quote]

Actually the folks that predicted this in our country and economy started with those dead old white guys that fought against a central bank. Control and issuance of money and credit was one of the many reasons for the Revolutionary War. They had very clear minds regarding of the importance of that.

From Thomas Jefferson:

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

From John Adams:

All the perplexities, confusions and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, as much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.

From Teddy Roosevelt:

When they call the role in the senate, the senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'

From Lysander Spooner:

Constitutions are utterly worthless to restrain the tyranny of governments, unless it be understood that the people will, by force, compell the government to keep within constitutional limits. Practically speaking, no government knows any limits to its power, except the endurance of the people. But that the people are stronger than the government, and will resist in extreme cases, our governments would be little or nothing else than organized systems of plunder and oppression.

From George Washington:

The time is near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend on God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die.

From TJ:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

From TJ:

To compell a man to furnish funds for the propogation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Sorry, I can get a bit "quote happy" when looking through my list of favored quotes. The first one was the target I was initially aiming at.

Uncle Nasty




TNstepsout -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/29/2008 5:37:47 PM)

Honestly at this point I don't think 700 B would be enough either. All it's really going to do is stop the bleeding. It's kind of like a tourniquet. A major insurance firm in Europe is now being propped up and the news is that central banks in other countries are scrambling to inject cash just as we have been doing. Markets around the world are falling. It's very dire. What this plan would have done was add some confidence and alleviate some fear. Given the delays and vacillating and the obvious lack of insight, I don't think any plan would have much effect at this point.

Last night I was up late looking for news of the bailout and all I could find was information of other global markets and news. It's very very disturbing. The entire global economy is reacting to what is happening here and it is having a ripple effect all over the world. The three biggest industries that created the boom in our economy in recent years were housing, finance and emerging markets. Now ALL of them are in trouble.

In terms of companies that produce necessary goods, yes they will still continue to sell goods, but as costs rise, the bottom line will shrink and that could mean layoffs, wage freezes or a contraction of the business. There are also a lot of companies that produce goods that people will cut from their budget. Extras like $4 lattes, $200 tennis shoes and $30 shampoos. You might see those companies as unnecessary, because they just promote wasteful spending,  but what about all the people they employ? What happens when all those jobs are cut from the market? What about all the things they buy to make their products? What happens to those companies? There is a very real ripple effect. Our economy has exploded in the last few decades because of really excess consumerism. While that might seem distasteful to some, it has produced a lot of jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist.




Musicmystery -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/29/2008 5:41:30 PM)

If you live beyond your means, get into serious trouble, and someone bails you out, but you do nothing different, you will have crisis after crisis.

Taking our money isn't the magic solution. Far, far past time to address the fundamentals---and the abuses.



Termyn8or -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/29/2008 6:08:07 PM)

My shoes cost nine dollars, now where do you think I sit on this issue ?

T



KneelforAnne -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/29/2008 7:46:04 PM)

Hello,

i really hate to look like an idiot, but i am going to just give my opinion for what it is worth.  i will start by saying i know nothing about finance or money, and i have not read all of the postings here yet. 

This is what i think:

If the government is going to give away $700 BILLION dollars  (i'm sorry, it is so hard for me to get my mind around that number) then why not let the American people have it?

Off the top of my head, i don't know how many people are in America, how many are paying taxes and so forth...

BUT

i would much rather see it go to people who deserve it, than bail out some institution that is run by "experts".

In my mind, it's attempting to rescue something that may fail anyway.  And then we would be out $700 BILLION dollars.


i'm just curious, and wanting to know if i am totally off base!  Maybe i am oversimplifying things!

~anne






slvemike4u -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/29/2008 7:52:28 PM)

Works for me...but unfortunately would do little to save the troubled economy.



KneelforAnne -> RE: Why the bailout at all ? (9/29/2008 8:01:56 PM)

slvemike4u,

Wouldn't it?  People spend...

i don't know how much it would be, but maybe enough to cover some debts?  Pay off a car, make a mortgage payment or two?

i am totally speculating.

$700 Billion is such a big number...how much was the economic stimulus check in the summer, how much did that cost the government?  i really doubt it was $700 big ones.

According to Wikipedia it cost around $152 Billion.  i know how "reliable" wiki is...

Think about distributing $700 B instead of $152 B. 

Wouldn't that work wonders for the economy?

Does what i am saying make any sense?

~anne








Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.100586E-02