I was listening to NPR in the car today and was further distressed by something that had been bugging me since I started to dig into the $700 billion bailout package. The whole thing is a fracking joke. This entire debacle highlights why we shouldn't trust the president's request: The request is done in such a way that removes all congressional and judicial scrutiny from how the money is spent. There is zero restrictions on how corporations spend the money. No corporate executive accountability (i.e. companies receiving the funds can still pay out millions and millions in bonuses to their executives who drove the companies into bankruptcy). Most distressing of all, companies like Goldman Sachs can simply "change", on a whim, their market strategy to be able to tap into the money, which money will be provided by former Goldman Sachs CEO and current Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson. Something David Johnson (guest on the program pointed out) was that the "crisis" actually wasn't effecting the general American market as much as it's been played out to be by the President and his cabinet. And while there is reason to react and be concerned, there is no excuse for bailing out companies that should merely be seized by the Feds and liquidated to other companies. This is what the fair market is about. ~String
As I said from the beginning... Put them into recievership and sell off the assets and accounts piecemeal.
Sounds good to me. Fuck those cocksuckers. I see no reason to tack on a couple of extra trillion dollars to our debt to save the same asswipes that got us into this mess.
The crisis wasn't orchestrated. It happened quite organically. It's just not being handled the way it should be. Like Raven said: those companies should not be saved. Their American customers should be protected, because the government has a vested interest in saving the economy, but the companies should be dissolved and sold off piece-meal. ~String
The $700 billion bailout package is going to cripple the American dollar's purchasing power. If this trend of bailout continues, the U.S. is going to witness an era of hyperinflation akin to the Weimar Republic in the 1920s. string: You understand how Congress works better than me, so I'll ask you a few questions. What would happen if the majority of Congress decided to vote against this bailout package? Could Bush find a loophole, or would he have to accept the package's refusal? In addition, isn't the majority of Congress run by Democrats? Couldn't they, theoretically, vote against this package and get what they want? Kadark
I agree that there should be a bail-out. Let's face it: most of the money will be made back when the assets are re-sold. But, I want control over the money. Here's an interesting question: if the US government can cough up $700 billion in a fortnight to save the banking business, how come they can't cough up $75 to build new windmills and nuclear power plants to get American electricity production totally off natural gas and petrol? With about a tenth of what we're spending on the banking crisis, we could have enough power plants up and running in under a decade to cut our oil imports by 1/3. Assinine. ~String
No. Bush could do nothing, except continue to scare the public and strong-arm the Congress which heretofore has acted without the slightest hing of balls. The Congress controls the purse. There is, literally, nothing he could do. They'll pass the bill though, and I hope, it's closer to the one the Dems want. Note: The bailout is important. Everything I've read points to one overriding fact: most, if not all, of the money will come back to the Congress in under a decade. What we stand to lose is the control over how the money is spent (and this much money ALWAYS attracts corruption like a blue light does mosquitos) and accountability of corporate executives. ~String
Under such a system, it's imperative for Democrats to admit to sharing part of the blame for the Iraq crisis. This all seems so simple to me: if you think the war is illegal, do not vote to fund it. The same concept applies to this bailout package. Kadark
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/28/bailout.ap/index.html They've come to a tentative agreement, but apparently we are not privy to the details yet. It's only our money.
If the entire bailout package is to be financed by American taxpayers, then ... Well, let's just say there are 75,000,000 tax-paying households in America. This means each household owes $9,333. Hmm ... Kadark
They are fans of a more direct method in India apparently: Corporate India is in shock after a mob of workers bludgeoned to death the chief executive who sacked them from a factory in a suburb of Delhi. Lalit Kishore Choudhary, 47, the head of the Indian operations of Graziano Transmissioni, a manufacturer of car parts that has its headquarters in Italy, died of severe head wounds on Monday after being attacked by scores of laid-off employees, police said. The incident, in Greater Noida, followed a long-running dispute between the factory’s management and workers demanding better pay and permanent contracts. It is understood that Mr Choudhary, who was married with one son, had called a meeting with more than a hundred former employees who had been dismissed after an earlier outbreak of violence at the plant. He wanted to discuss a possible reinstatement deal. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4810644.ece
Actually, the president cannot propose legislation. He doesn't have that authority. He can only ask congress to deal with a situation. They propose the legislation, and he approves it. All the Congress has to do is include the protections that I mentioned (that have been proposed). The current debt + future committments is over 180,000 per citizen. Believe it or not, this is well below Japan, South Korea, Israel, Sweden, France, Germany and the UK. The problem with ours is its sheer size and the fact that most countries seem to be dealing with theirs now (except Japan: they're fools: each of them owes over 300k). ~String
im not talking about that, im talking about why is it the main issue in this elections? it turns out it should be that monkey midget from Iran.
The executive orders cannot appropriate funds. Even Nixon (probably the most crafty president this side of Lincoln) couldn't swing that. All an executive order can do is enact current legislation or current constitutional powers given to the president. No matter how much he squeals, there is nothing he can do to get the money other than beg. Teddy Roosevelt, upon being denied the funds to pay for the "White Fleet" to be sent around Cape Horn, sent them anyway and said to Congress something like, "Well, you don't have to fund the expedition, but if you ever want to see the fleet again, you'll appropriate the funds to get them home." It was crafty business, but it highlights the basic fact: Only the Congress can appropriate the funds. ~String
Really? You think so? No. Honeslty, I think it should be the ecnomy. Iran is not a threat to the USA. Nuclear weapons are outrageously difficult to build. Pakisan, after more than four decades of working on them, only has 30. I doubt they'll be sending them overseas. If they did, they'd cease to exist immediately. ~String
why not? what does the midget cares? he has a bunker, or a place to hide, its only his people that will suffer. BTW, the Russians are helping them, and i know that techniques to hide small nuclear bombs isnt a new concept. smuggling them may be an issue. and dont forget that the UN applauded him.
How many investment brokers does it take to screw in a light bulb? Fish. The price tells me at least of the magnitude of the problem. But something that has been absent from this discussion in the news media seems to be the inevitable question. See, the thing I wonder is when the ripple effect is going to devastate employment. It seems to me that if they would put those estimations before the public, as to make this debacle seem just a little less surreal.
string, you know what really gets me about all this. Oh sure its ok because we are just bailing out the private companies then we become the debt collectors driving the morgage holder into the dirt. Shouldnt your focus be on helping those homeowners keep there houses rather than protecting the multimillion $ bonus's paid to the bank CEO's?
