RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events The Great Crash of 2008

The senate passed the bailout 74-25 and showed how a house of congress should act in front of the cameras afterwards. It was the first time I have ever seen Harry Reid not be a douchebag. I'm happy that it was bi-partisan and they all seemed to get along pretty well.

Yeah, but that's always been a hallmark of the Senate. The House of Representatives has always been a bit more of the extreme and partisan. The Senate has always behaved like the grown-up's for the most part.

For the most part...



Still can't look Obama in the eye, I see...

Like I said, the dow isn't telling you shit. It's just an indicator of whether they're more pessimistic today of a deal being finalized or optimistic. Look at the credit situation:

The washington post:



I don't think the day to day of the Dow is what anyone but the most uninformed Congressman is looking at. Basically as I said, it's just a gauge of the day to day mood of whatever enticement or discouragement is immediately in front of these people. It's not telling you anything long term. The credit situation and the banks failing is the real gauge. And this liquidity situation is what everyone says has them scared shitless. The Dow will go down and stay there AFTER the worst case scenario comes to pass, not before. From here to if we get there, it'll just rise and fall wildly reflecting the uncertainty.

All of which would tend to support the theory that the bailout won't fix shit.

Bailout Passes: President Bush signs $700 billion bailout bill after House approves, 263-171, clearing way for Treasury Department to buy up bad debt crippling financial system.

Damn!

Due to the limited functionality of this board's search engine and my reluctance to read back over dozens of pages of what I assume is mostly name-calling and youtube video links anyway, I may be just recycling an already tired-out topic here, but I find a lot about the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the passing of this bill disconcerting...as well as the bill itself.

Rejected initially under intense media scrutiny at a length of three pages, the bill quickly ballooned to novel-size and seemingly without deliberation or consultation was hurried through passing, "under the radar", while the country's focus fell on the debates and whether or not O.J Simpson would finally to go jail for good this time. Many of the country's leading economists are not in favor it, or at least the principles of its original incarnation, as is the case with Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz. Even its strongest proponents(the joke that is the current bicameral legislature we call Congress) seem to be modest and measured in their praise; praise that comes with $150-billion in earmarked prompting.

What perhaps I find most curious of all, however, is section 8, which most of you intelligent people likely already know about, but for King Snarf's benefit I'll reproduce:



So, $700 billion in taxpayer money will be distributed back to those who were largely responsible for the mess that necessitated such a silly, stampede-like proceeding in the first place, all at the behest of a man(Paulson) who used to work for them, and no-one can hold him accountable?

Please, someone, illuminate for me the logic and reason behind this, because I don't see it.

there is none.

don't do it, its a trap!!

That's going to be on Obama's Presidential seal...

From the New York Times, Pressured to Take More Risk, Fannie Hit a Tipping Point: A decision, made under pressure from Congress and investors, to steer Fannie Mae into dangerous corners of the mortgage market proved to be disastrous.

• But by the time Mr. Mudd became Fannie’s chief executive in 2004, his company was under siege. Competitors were snatching lucrative parts of its business. Congress was demanding that Mr. Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers. Lenders were threatening to sell directly to Wall Street unless Fannie bought a bigger chunk of their riskiest loans.

And, also from the Times, A Snarl of Regulation: Who’s to blame for the implosion of financial markets? The finger-pointing has gone in every direction, and it’s easy to see why: the regulatory structure points in every direction.

The U.S. may partly nationalize banks! Okay, this is just scary. Perhaps necessary. What did the hell did the Republicans do to our country? And John McCain doesn't want to talk about the economy. I guess if you have 12 homes you have that luxury.

From the NYT:





This situation looks as if it's decorating rather than improving if we're talking about taking over the banks..

The only real plus I can see right now is that thank goodness a Republican is doing this because if it had fallen to Obama to nationalize the country's banking system, you'd never hear the end of it from conservatives.

"See, I told you they were socialist commies!!" they'd taunt as they'd wag the accusatory finger. That's the kind of good sportsmanship and pulling together I tend to expect from the far right.





So now the Che ney logo actually has a lot of truth to it.

But ultimately this is exactly what Democrats and liberals were saying would happen way back when Bush came into office in 2000. Remember? We said that Bush was a failure, a BIG failure in every enterprise and endeavour he put his mind and effort into and this would be no different, God help us. And sure, you can point fingers the other way and blame others but but honestly, it ended EXACTLY like we said it would. Not that that is cause to celebrate. It isn't. He fucked us all.

And I suspect that we'll ultimately find out that the extent of this economy's slide was suppressed and obfuscated in the hopes that he'd be able to slink out come December before anyone could blame him for a "recession". Now he'll be lucky to leave office before a Depression hits. And I say that knowing that he's supressed bad economic data before. Let's not even get into the exculpatory Iraq intel.

A few more...

Does this mean you're a bush fan now?

You're a fucking moron.

You (through some unfunny) political cartoons said bush was a socialist. I thought you like socialist?

Again, you're a fucking moron.

I clearly said in my post that it was good that it was a Republican doing this because then asshats like you who think Democrat= socialist would spend the next 20 years using it against us.

So I guess Republican=socialist now, eh Rex?

BTW, those cartoons were funny. In a dark comedy sort of way. you're probably just pissed that it wasn't a cartoon of Obama in Panamanian dictator fatigues or something...

to be fair I think rex hates everyone.

Apparently, you've missed many posts over the years, including recently, where some of we Republicans have criticized Bush for being insufficiently conservative on a number of issues.

I find it interesting that you consistently declare Bush an incompetent moron and/or criminal and, yet, here he is embracing policies you advocate.

Shouldn't that make you question the wisdom of your policies?

I think it makes him just smack his wife.

these steps aern't "policies".

either from Democrats or Republicans.

these steps are a panicked bunch of people trying anything to stop the depression.

Political cartoons are never funny.

This frankly is reprehensible. What is the phrase "privatize profits, socialize losses"? This along with all those pricey spa retreats to executives in companies being bailed out by taxpayer money should be a matter of criminal action. and frankly, under a McCain Administration, i don't see there being any real possibility of holding these robber barons to account.

I can see these guys laughing all the way to the bank even as we continue to reward their failures.

First off I find this reprehensible too. I hope if Obama wins he does stop this and goes after Barney Frank and Dodd for their Fannie Mae BS. I don't see McCain letting them get away with this stuff. Bush yeah Romney probably but McCain will stop this. It would help him greatly if he named Giulianni as his AG and say to everyone he will go after all the people responsible for this mess Republican and Democrat. Giulliani is despised by many on the left because he is moderate and moderates are a threat to you guys because they appeal to independents but the guy has a proven tack record of cleaning up fraud and corruption and putting guys in jail like the entire NYC mafia.


NYC was a dangerous wasteland before Giuliiani came to power. You can't deny him that.

I won't dispute you that much regarding Giuliani cleaning up Manhattan. Still, this is a case of whether you believe in order vs disorder.

The two extremes can end up being fascism vs lawlessness. And order taken to it's extreme can be a loss of freedom. anarchy in and of itself is pure freedom. So while I applaud him for at least cleaning up the city, I really disagree with his grander ambitions and ideas on the national stage. Such as his ideas on wiretapping, torture, etc.

Here in L.A. we have a downtown that for decades was the dumping ground for the nations vagrants and drug addicts. Now that the city is becoming increasingly gentrified, I'm still amazed that there are people who wish to preserve it as a haven for the homeless and drug addicted despite the drop in crime and new housing and business (and growing nightlife). So that is obviously one extreme position by homeless activists that I vehemently disagree with.

Same with the self styled advocates for "bus riders". Yes, we have those too. These people are ALWAYS trying to stymie any other type of public transportation ideas that would not only improve traffic congestion in one of the most congested cities in the world but would also be more aesthetically pleasing, more efficient, faster, better connected to actual places you'd want to go to and cleaner. So yeah, i really roll my eyes and dismiss these activists as well. Counter productive is what they are.

so you see, I myself don't mind a bit of order every now and then. I'm even for eminent domain if it means the removal of eyesores for something that is actually going to improve the community. Like say the crackhead infested liquor on the corner of Central and Compton Blvd. store that is going to be torn down by the city of Compton to make way for a new retail center.

And AIG better get a very stong talking to buy whoever wins next week. I mean I would rip their entire board a new asshole on a conference call on Nov.5 if I was McCain or Obama.

Too bad Elliot Spitzer did all that seedy shit (not that I have a real problem with it since I think Prostitution should be legal) but he would have been a good AG for Obama.

Bailout Audit Riles Critics: Report on $700B bailout plan has lawmakers from both parties revolting against Treasury's execution of package

ABCnews

Throwing money at the problem hasn't worked so far; but that's hardly a good enough reason to stop, is it?

I don't see it as just throwing money at the problem and this isn't a problem that is going to be quickly fixed. It can get quickly worse though and I think that's will happen if the government doesn't act.

I take it you didn't like the way the bailout thread was going so you dredged up this thread?

What I posted wasn't about the auta bailout, I used the appropiate thread.

According to the part of the article you didn't cite:

• Republicans were particularly incensed that more than $17 billion went to bail out Detroit's auto giants.
  
  Pelosi told "Good Morning America" today that if the money is approved it would be because Obama had promised the money would be tracked, executive bonuses would be eliminated for companies that accept federal funds, and the money would be used to help homeowners as well as banks.

So in other words what I posted was appropiate for this thread but you found a mention of the auto bailout further down in the article...this means what to you exactly G-man?

Stop thinking the government is some great and righteous thing. Its evil and corrupt. It will never handle money well.