Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
I help enlighten folks
Joined
·
16,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
..while the Republicans just talk about it while doing the opposite. McCain voters, do you need a hammer hit over your head?

Robert Reich:

The Bailout of All Bailouts is a Bad Idea

Talk today about the Bailouts of All Bailouts eased market fears and generated a giant rally on the Street, but how realistic is it?

On Capitol Hill, Senator Charles Schumer suggested that government inject funds into financial companies in exchange for equity stakes and pledges to rewrite mortgages and make them more affordable. At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Hank Paulson reportedly is considering an agency like the Resolution Trust Corporation, established during the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s, to take bad debts off the balance sheets of financial institutions.

Problems are: (1) It's not likely to do all that much good because no one knows how much bad debt there is out there. Even if the government bought a lot of it, investors and lenders still couldn't be sure how much remained. After all, big banks have already written down hundreds of billions of bad debts, and that hasn't restored confidence in the Street. As the economy slows, bad debts will grow. Again, the problem isn't a liquidity or solvency crisis; it's a crisis of trust.

(2) However much bad debt there may be, that amount is surely far greater than the $394 billion of real estate, mortgages, and other assets that the old RTC bought from hundreds of failed savings-and-loans -- thereafter selling them off form whatever it could get for them. The Bailout of All Bailouts would therefore put taxpayers at far greater risk than they are even today, and require an unprecedented role for government in reselling assets. Another major step toward socialized capitalism.

A better idea would be for the Fed and Treasury to organize a giant workout of Wall Street -- essentially, a reorganization under bankruptcy, for whatever firms wanted to join in. Equity would be eliminated, along with most preferred stock, creditors would be paid off to the extent possible. And then the participants would start over with clean balance sheets that reflected new, agreed-upon rules for full disclosure, along with minimum capitalization. Everyone would know where they stood. Bad debts would be eliminated. Taxpayers wouldn't get left holding the bag. And there would be no "moral hazard" incentive for future financial wizards to take giant risks with other taxpayers' money.

Congress, the Fed, and the Administration shouldn't be giving more help to Wall Street. Policymakers should focus instead on people who really need a safety net right now -- workers who have lost or are about to lose their jobs, who need extended unemployment insurance and health insurance for themselves and their families; homeowners who have lost or are likely to lose their homes, who need additional help meeting mortgage payments and reorganizing their debts; and people who have lost or are in danger of losing their savings or pensions, who need better insurance against possible loss.

The only way Wall Street's meltdown doesn't spill over to Main Street is if policymakers begin to pay adequate attention to the people whose wallets really keep the economy going, and who merit more help than the Wall Street tycoons whose carelessness and negligence have put it in such jeopardy.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/09/bailout-of-all-bailouts-is-bad-idea.html
 

·
I help enlighten folks
Joined
·
16,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
More unemployment benefits, health insurance, help paying their mortgages, etc. No one is sticking up for capitalism. They're just arguing about who gets the welfare checks, white collar or blue collar monkeys.

That's not capitalism.
you'd rather give huge money to CEO's instead of unemployemnt to people who have had unemployment money contributed by their employers?
There is no link between those two, how did you do that?
hyperspace button?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,231 Posts
you'd rather give huge money to CEO's instead of unemployemnt to people who have had unemployment money contributed by their employers?
Where did I say we should give money to CEO's? I don't think employers should have to pay unemployment either. Capitalism is about growing a sack and standing on your own two feet. You make a good call, you get the rewards. You make a bad call, you eat the loss.

There is no link between those two, how did you do that?
hyperspace button?
This statement doesn't make any sense to me. I'm guessing it's some kind of insult.
 

·
I help enlighten folks
Joined
·
16,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Where did I say we should give money to CEO's? I don't think employers should have to pay unemployment either. Capitalism is about growing a sack and standing on your own two feet. You make a good call, you get the rewards. You make a bad call, you eat the loss.



This statement doesn't make any sense to me. I'm guessing it's some kind of insult.
it seems like you're complaining about the way things are now instead of even mentioning the 700 billion and the socializing of wall street. (This thread is about the wall street bailout). it seems like the target gets shifted from the fat cats responsible for bankrupting the country to complaining about joe blow getting some measly peanuts for a couple months from actually being unemployed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,231 Posts
it seems like you're complaining about the way things are now instead of even mentioning the 700 billion and the socializing of wall street. (This thread is about the wall street bailout). it seems like the target gets shifted from the fat cats responsible for bankrupting the country to complaining about joe blow getting some measly peanuts for a couple months from actually being unemployed.
The title of the thread is "Once again the Dems are sticking up for Capitalism... ". And that's just not true. I pointed that out. Everything I've posted is relative to the blog entry you posted.

Wall Street shouldn't get a dime from taxpayers. And Joe Unemployed shouldn't either.
 

·
I help enlighten folks
Joined
·
16,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
The title of the thread is "Once again the Dems are sticking up for Capitalism... ". And that's just not true. I pointed that out. Everything I've posted is relative to the blog entry you posted.

Wall Street shouldn't get a dime from taxpayers. And Joe Unemployed shouldn't either.
right. never mind the 700 Billion, i'm seething over government cheese.
nice distraction politics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,182 Posts
I'm with you 100% on the OP FXjohn.

I don't blame anyone for being fed up with this, or the way DC has been run the last 8 years. I just don't get how you think the Democrats (Obama) will fix anything. The vast majority of Dems have voted right with this neo-con White House on just about EVERYTHING.

THE ONLY THING that will fix our financial mess is, as Ron Paul said, abolish the Federal Reserve and return to a currency backed by something (among other things). NO other candidate (besides Chuck Baldwin) will dare touch this subject. This tells me they are either ignorant, or fellow elitists. This tells me they HAVE NO CLUE what the problem is, let alone how to fix it.

How anyone can be fairly educated yet still support the Dems or GOP is beyond me.
 

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
last 8 yrs?-----try 40
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,231 Posts
right. never mind the 700 Billion, i'm seething over government cheese.
nice distraction politics.
Your derisive tone is intended to mask a logically bankrupt viewpoint. Play connect the dots with the remaining brain cells you have and read this closely. I agree 100% that Wall Street should get nothing. Your flippant remark "never mind the 700 billion" is silly, since I agree that Wall Street should get nothing. You accuse me of distraction politics, when you are the one doing it.
 

·
I help enlighten folks
Joined
·
16,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Your derisive tone is intended to mask a logically bankrupt viewpoint. Play connect the dots with the remaining brain cells you have and read this closely. I agree 100% that Wall Street should get nothing. Your flippant remark "never mind the 700 billion" is silly, since I agree that Wall Street should get nothing. You accuse me of distraction politics, when you are the one doing it.
you seem pretty calm for a guy who just watched his country socialize his financial markets. I'm not being distracted. i'm concentrating on denying wall street the 700 billion.
 

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
they like other sid eare on this sticking up fer captalism that they can control and gain more power through.

if anyone actually thinks that this thing is not gonna be full of regulation and further govt control of econ and us ----

take another drink of koolaid
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,588 Posts
Alternative to more govco:thumb:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28678


The Republican Study Committee has released an alternative to the Treasury Department's bailout proposal and will discuss the proposal at a press conference today. Conservatives have expressed concern that the Treasury's proposal will alter the country's free-market system, awards massive authority to the Treasury, and fails to penalize debtholders and shareholders. Here is the committee's free-market alternative as released this morning:

REFORMING A TAX CODE THAT DISCOURAGES CAPITAL FORMATION

Two-Year Suspension of the Capital Gains: Immediately suspend the capital gains rate of 15% for individuals and 35% for corporations. By encouraging corporations to sell unwanted assets, this provision would unleash funds and materials with which to create jobs and grow the economy. After the two-year suspension, capital gains rates would return to present levels but assets would be indexed permanently for any inflationary gains.
 

·
I help enlighten folks
Joined
·
16,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
they like other sid eare on this sticking up fer captalism that they can control and gain more power through.

if anyone actually thinks that this thing is not gonna be full of regulation and further govt control of econ and us ----

take another drink of koolaid
hmm, looks like mcCain is pretty much responsible compared to Obama.

read it and weep

have read and heard a lot of talk about who and what is responsible for the current financial crisis. One of the persons who is being blamed is Bill Clinton and his changes to the Community Reinvenstment Act.

This did not seem realistic to me, so I have done some checking on my own and would like to share the following. It is to be noted that former Sen. Phil Gramm is a major economic advisor to Sen. McCain and it is his bill of 1999 which appears to be the primary culprit.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338 (November 12, 1999), repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act, opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited a bank from offering investment, commercial banking, and insurance services. This act of 1999 allowed the opening of lending to move banks from organizations to receive deposits and make loans to multi-functioning organizations. It is these corporations who worked with mortgage origination companies to write loans to people without proper collateral or even credit worthy. These same institutions then sold the loans as paper to investors. It was this law, not the Community Reinvestment Act, which is the primary culprit behind the current investment problem. (Some of above from Wikipedia)

http://chattanoogan.com/articles/article_135573.asp
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,588 Posts
Bill Clinton put the Freddie Fannie blame on the Dems back in 92. haha

He said he and the Republicans tried to tighten it up. sure, sure, yeah, yeah
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top