We know the majority of Americans are against the bailout. The majority of Americans are wrong.

[scheming daemons]

If you're in the 75% of America that is against this bailout bill, then you are wrong.


Sorry... you just are.



Some stupid people on Wall Street did some stupid things. They "started a fire".



We can let it burn.... in which case it will burn down ALL of our houses.... or we can put it out.



*ALL* or our money is at stake... not just the Wall Street fat cats.


If the bailout goes down, we ALL go down.


Within 6 months.. there will be 15% unemployment... 10% inflation... and the DOW will be at 7000.

Pensions won't be funded. Loans won't be available. Jobless claims will soar, and states won't be able to give out jobless benefits.

Healthcare will go into crisis mode, as the unemployed lose their benefits.

Banks won't offer credit to small businesses, and they will go out of business by the thousands. Retail businesses won't be able to meet payroll. Bankrupcies will soar.



Your financial well-being is at stake here.


Yes... the American people are against the bailout. By and large, the American people are economically illiterate and don't understand what's in their own best interest.


Am I being condescending? Yep. Sure am. The average American has no clue how close this nation is to the precipice if this bailout doesn't happen.


Obama and congressional Democrats got the protections into the bailout that we needed. Assurances for the taxpayer, limits on CEO compensation, and oversight.

This is no longer the "Paulson bailout". It is a bill that does what is needed without granting so much power to the treasury with no oversight.


The bailout package is needed. If you are against it, then you are wrong.

[tekisui]

1. A bailout package may be needed, not necessarily this one, or RIGHT NOW.

[movonne]

37. What you said....

[aquart]

46. Precisely.

ESPECIALLY, I feel the nation and the world needs to see that we are not throwing good money after bad, and that we are willing to take punitive, even draconian, action to ensure this will never happen again.

I see NOTHING that will prevent this from happening again next month. Or next spring. Or next year. Nothing.

[Karenina]

182. COMPLETE AUDITS, PRICE DISCOVERY, INDICTMENTS...

THEN let's talk about how to get a WIN-WIN out of this!

[OneBlueSky]

185. amen . . . n/t

.

[avaistheone1]

192. This one stinks. Even the Chief of the CBO who is in charge of our money says so.

[golddigger]

2. Thank you! I feel so much F'g better now!

[melody]

3. They are bold enough to be against it because they don't have to make the decision

When your finger is on the trigger, you're a lot slower to the touch.

[aquart]

48. I think you have that backwards.

It is the ones with their fingers on the trigger who are eager to fire our money into Wall Street.

WE, however, are saying "Wait a goshdern minute there. Hold your fire. Make sure that bear is actually charging. And what about a tranquilizer dart instead?"

[melody]

56. No, this bear has its mouth open and is about to rip us ALL to shreds

It is precisely the problem ... the decision must be made, it's a hard one, but it's what we entrust these people to do.
I trust most of the Democrats (and maybe one or two GOP) to do as much as they can on our behalf. We pretty much have to
trust them. They have all the information.

[aquart]

61. LOL! Oh, wait. You're serious.

They had ALL the information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, too.

Please, you HAVE to be kidding me.

[melody]

64. I'm very serious

I was up all night reading the backwork on the situation. This isn't Bush-Cheney saying this -- even Paul Krugman says it must be done.
At some point, you have to trust people -- if you're going to stay sane.

[aquart]

70. Paul Krugman said THIS bill has to be passed?

You'll need a dated link to back that up.

[melody]

75. No, he said A bill had to be passed with specific provisions

The provisions are IN this bill.

He also said it has to be passed ASAP.

[aquart]

82. We differ. A pretense of oversight is not oversight.

I'm sorry. You will have to show me where Krugman says THIS bill is acceptable.

[melody]

84. Read it from his blog

"Not a good plan. But sufficiently not-awful, I think, to be above the line; and hopefully the whole thing can be fixed next year."

[AllieB]

81. From his blog:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

"My view is that (1) will be ineffective but also not a bad deal for taxpayers — firms that can afford to will dump their toxic waste at low prices, the way some already have on the private market, and taxpayers may end up making money in the end."

"Not a good plan. But sufficiently not-awful, I think, to be above the line; and hopefully the whole thing can be fixed next year."

[aquart]

130. "I wish it was clearer how much equity will be judged sufficient."

Yah. Me, too. Golly, with a ringing endorsement like this one, we should just run right out and do it!

I'm especially fond of this little line "hopefully the whole thing can be fixed next year." I'm glad he has hope because I don't. If we are so pleased to get these vague, worthless promises, why would we bother to change them?

He calls the plan "ineffective," "not a good plan," "sufficiently not-awful." What part of this should fill me with confidence?

[Zhade]

106. Did you think Saddam was going to nuke us, too?

That al Qaeda was in your backyard, and thus the Patriot Act was necessary?

Don't you get tired of being demonstrably WRONG so often?

[melody]

141. No, I didn't. But if you want to, continue believing what you want to believe

When everything falls apart, you can then feel badly about it.

Incidentally, even Paul Krugman is for the bailout.

[BigBearJohn]

171. READ THIS (if you have the stomach for it)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/top-5-reasons-to-vote-aga_b_130068.html?view=print

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[melody]

86. Is that the best you can do for an argument? Call people names?

Welcome to my ignore list ... you are worthless for any discussion.

[leftofcool]

4. No, we are right. This was the wrong plan

[leeroysphitz]

5. So what happens if we DON'T do the bailout?

[scheming daemons]

14. Your employer will stop being able to pay you within a few months, especially if you're in retail

You won't be able to get a loan. ANY kind of loan. No matter how good your credit is.


More giant banks will collapse.



Read up on the years 1929 to 1940. You'll be reliving them if the bailout doesn't pass.

[lostnotforgotten]

38. Survived Unemployment For Five Years - Can Do Another Stretch Again If Necessary

eom

[shanti]

50. just because YOU did

does not mean that others are able to. what about the disable, the elderly, the CHILDREN??? if the economy collapses, the suffering will be incomprehensible.

[melody]

60. I wouldn't count on unemployment compensation, if so

I mean, I was against this last week until I started reading (as best an idiot such as myself can) the material on the bail-out
and the alternative is unthinkable. Is it robbery? Absolutely. But just because an outlaw shot a hole in the dike doesn't mean it should be left unplugged.

[sendero]

83. Giant banks collapsing?

Is not a bad thing. All the other stuff you mention is already happening and will continue to happen. You are just dumb enough to believe that the government can stop it.

Better refill your KY-drip, you'll be needing it soon.

[Zhade]

108. Saddam and bin Laden will break into your house and nuke you!

NT!

[Larry Ogg]

175. If we don’t do the bailout,

a large number of elites will suffer the same fate as the middle class and become part of the rapidly growing poor and homeless population.

But if the bailout passes, the elites will not be effected, except that slave labor will be much cheaper for them, as the middle class will become part of the growing poor and homeless population, and willing to work for table scraps.

[Junkdrawer]

6. "Economists say bailout plan is flawed and isn't needed"

WASHINGTON -- A funny thing happened in the drafting of the largest-ever U.S. government intervention in the financial system. Lawmakers of all stripes mostly fell in line, but many of the nation's brightest economic minds are warning that the Wall Street bailout's a dangerous rush job.

President Bush and his Treasury secretary, former Goldman Sachs chief executive Henry Paulson, have warned of imminent economic collapse and another Great Depression if their rescue plan isn't passed immediately.

Is that true?

"It's more hype than real risk," said James K. Galbraith, a University of Texas economist and son of the late economic historian John Kenneth Galbraith. "A nasty recession is possible, but the bailout will not cure that. So it's mainly relevant to the financial industry."

The Paulson plan will get some bad assets off the balance sheets of troubled Wall Street institutions and commercial banks. That may help thaw the lending freeze.

But it wouldn't reduce the crush of homes in or near foreclosure, said Simon Johnson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That's a problem that will surely grow worse if the U.S. economy enters recession, leading to greater job losses, which feed a vicious downward spiral of even more foreclosures and defaults on car loans and credit-card debt.

....

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/701956.html

[Zhade]

115. Hmmm, should I believe leading economists or someone who probably fell for the WMD lies?

Such a hard decision!

[lostnotforgotten]

7. No Bailout Today, Tomorrow, Or Ever

See Naomi Klein

http://blip.tv/file/521421

See Jim Paplava

http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2008-0927-3a.mp3

See the Ticker Guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daOfYmSLW_U&eurl=http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/590-FLASH-Fed-Speaking-Out-Both-Sides-Of-Mouth.html

[scheming daemons]

8. Naomi, Jim, and the Ticker Guy are wrong.

[lostnotforgotten]

11. So Says You - What Credibility Do You Have - My Resources Are Credible - Are You?

eom

[scheming daemons]

15. Wife and brother work in the finance industry. Trust me... this is not a drill.

[lostnotforgotten]

18. And You Expect Me To Take Your Word On Faith

Yeah like I took on faith that Nancy and Harry were going to end the war in Iraq.

I don't know your relatives from squat.

Dream on that I believe you.

[scheming daemons]

21. Fine... listen to Warren Buffet... Listen to Barack Freaking Obama.....

[lostnotforgotten]

28. Barrack Sounds Skeptical As Well - I Listen to Dennis - Dennis Says No

As far as buffet goes he's a Plutocrat - Part of the problem.

Besides he has shareholders to protect - What do you expect him to say.

Face it, the wealthy have beaten wealth out of he poor for so long, we will not believe anything they say.

And that goes double for financial advisers.

[scheming daemons]

33. You're right. Barack Obama and Democratic leaders are committing political suicide because ....

it's all a hoax.


:sarcasm:

[lostnotforgotten]

36. Your Sarcasm Is Lost On Me - I Was Unemployed In Bush's America For Five Years

I don't do sarcasm any more.

[depakid]

179. Yep and as you mentioned on another thread

YOU WANT EVERYONBE ELSE TO BE AS MISERABLE AND UNFORTUNATE AS YOU.

[pnutbutr]

181. five years?

Sound like a slacker to me. You couldn't get a job washing lettuce at your local McDonalds or something?

Fact remains that if the economy goes down because we don't go through with this bailout there will be rampant unemployment and no money to pay unemployment benefits and the money that does get paid with be worthless because of inflation.

[mhatrw]

193. And you sound like a ditto head.

If somebody didn't take a job washing lettuce at a fast food joint for minimum wage, he must be a slacker?

[mhatrw]

191. Buffet is lined up to profit quite handsomely from this Wall Street ripoff feeding frenzy.

Even he says he has a conflict of interest here.

[Speck Tater]

27. I can see a bank from my front porch, Charlie... NT

[nashville_brook]

30. blaahaahaha! good one.

[Mandate My Ass]

39. gol darn it

you made me log in just so I could do this...

:rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray:

[Zhade]

117. HAHAHAHAHA!!!

NICE.

[nashville_brook]

29. top 5 reasons why the bailout is bad for America (via D Sirota):

1. BAILOUT'S INHERENT FISCAL INSANITY COULD MAKE PROBLEM WORSE

When an individual consumer uses a new credit card to pay off astounding debt from an old credit card, it's called kiting, and in many cases, it is illegal. Apparently, though, when the government does it, it's billed as Serious Public Policy. Because that's what this supposedly prudent bailout bill would do: Force taxpayers to borrow $700 billion from foreign banks to pay off the bad debt of Wall Street banks. During a crisis that is aimed at preventing interest rates from skyrocketing, nobody has been able to explain how adding almost a trillion dollars to the interest rate-exacerbating national debt would do anything other than undermine the plan's underlying objective. Worse, the U.S. Treasury Department itself admits that the $700 billion number is "not based on any particular data point" - that is, they created it out of thin air because "We just wanted to choose a really large number." Slapping that amount of money onto the national credit card when our government can't even justify the amount is beyond absurd - it is insane.

It didn't have to be this way, of course. As I noted in my newspaper column this week, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a temporary tax on millionaires to finance part of this bailout. Similarly, Blue Dog Democrats proposed a future tax on financial firms if and when taxpayers lose cash on the deal. These proposals were discarded in favor of language asking the government to "submit a plan to Congress on how to recoup any losses," according to the Associated Press. Not only is that language toothless, but it opens up the possibility of a plan being submitted that says we should raise middle-class taxes or slash middle-class social programs to pay for Wall Street's misbehavior.

2. EXPERTS ON BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT SAY THIS BAILOUT COULD MAKE THINGS WORSE

Primum non nocere is the latin phrase for "first do no harm" - the priority principle for any EMT working on a sick patient. It should be the same priority for Congress at this moment - and a growing group of esteemed experts on both the Right and Left are insisting that this bailout bill could make things worse. Here's a review:

The Washington Post reported on Friday, almost 200 academic economists "have signed a petition organized by a University of Chicago professor objecting to the plan on the grounds that it could create perverse incentives, that it is too vague and that its long-run effects are unclear."
NYU's Nouriel Roubini, the visionary who had been predicting this meltdown, says "The Treasury plan (even in its current version agreed with Congress) is very poorly conceived and does not contain many of the key elements of a sound and efficient and fair rescue plan."
Harvard's Ken Rogoff, a Former Federal Rerserve and IMF official, insists that the prospect of this bailout is, unto itself, taking a manageable problem and making it into a more intense crisis. He says that credit is frozen primarily because banks want to avoid dealing with other banks that might drive a hard bargain, and instead would rather wait for free money from the government. Without the prospect of that free money, Rogoff suggests that credit would probably begin moving again, if slowly.
Dean Baker of the Center on Economic and Policy Research says that spending so much cash so quickly on such a poorly conceived plan could have the effect of making it impossible to fund economic stimulus that is the real way out of this mess. "Suppose the Paulson plan goes through," he writes. "It is virtually certain that the economy will weaken further and the number of foreclosures and people without jobs will continue to rise. This is the fallout from a collapsing housing bubble...When families respond to their loss of home equity by cutting back their consumption it will deepen the recession. In this context it might prove very important to have the resources needed to provide a substantial stimulus. there is no doubt that this bailout will make further stimulus much more difficult to sell politically."
Meanwhile, it's not even close to clear that this is a problem that requires such an enormous response. As mentioned above, the Treasury Department admits it has absolutely no factual basis for requesting $700 billion - an amount equivalent to about 5 percent of our entire economy. Additionally, the Washington Post reports that "Banks throughout the United States carried on with the business of making loans yesterday even as federal officials warned again that their industry is on the verge of collapse, suggesting that the overheated language on Capitol Hill may not reflect the reality on many Main Streets." Indeed, "many smaller banks said they were actually benefiting from the problems on Wall Street" and "even some of the nation's largest banks, which have pushed hard for a federal bailout, deny that the current situation is forcing them to reduce lending."

The questions, then, are simple: In the face of this bipartisan opposition from objective experts, why should a lawmaker instead believe the same Bush officials who helped create this crisis with their deregulation, the same Bush officials who just months ago said everything was AOK? Shouldn't there be almost complete unanimity among both objective and partisan observers before spending 5 percent of our entire economy after just one harried week of White House demands? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. It's time, as The Who said, that we "don't get fooled again."

3. THERE ARE CLEARLY BETTER AND SAFER ALTERNATIVES

The mantra throughout the week has been that America has "no choice" but to pass Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's $700 billion giveaway - that, in effect, there are no alternatives. But that's an out-and-out lie - one with a motive: Making it seem as if the only thing we can do is hand the keys to the federal treasury over to both parties' corporate campaign contributors.

The truth is, there are a number of alternatives. Here are just a few:

In the Washington Post last week, Galbraith outlined a multi-pronged plan shoring up and expanding the FDIC, creating a Home Owners Loan Corporation, resurrecting Nixon's federal revenue sharing, and taxing stock transactions (a tax that would fall mostly on speculators) to finance the whole deal.
The Service Employees International Union has drafted a plan based around a massive investment in public services and national health care, and regulatory reforms preventing foreclosures and forcing banks to renegotiate the predatory terms of their bad mortgages.
For those in the mindless, zombie-ish "someone has to do something!" camp, consider the possibility that you are under the spell of the same kind of White House fear that led us to invade Iraq because of Saddam's supposed WMD. Consider, perhaps, that there may not even be a compelling basis for doing anything just yet (or at least not anything nearly so huge), and that the whole reason there is this urgent push right now has nothing to do with the financial situation, and everything to do with creating the political dynamic to pass a wasteful giveaway - one that couldn't be passed otherwise without a sense of emergency. In two separate posts (here and here), CEPR's Baker says that letting the problem play out could be the best path, because Treasury and the Fed may already have the tools they need. Following this path, the worst thing that happens is "The Fed and Treasury will have to step in and take over the banks is exactly what many economists argue should happen anyhow," Baker writes. "So the outcome of the worst case scenario is a really frightening day in which the whole world financial system is shaken to its core, followed by a government takeover of the banks. Eventually the government straightens out the books and sells them off again. But the real threat here is not to the economy, it is to the banks."
Then there is the idea of simply taking the $700 billion and simply give it to struggling homeowners to help them pay off part of their mortgages. This hasn't even been discussed but the thought experiment it involves is important to understanding why there is, indeed, an alternative to the Paulson plan. If the root of this problem is people not being able to pay off their mortgages, and those defaults then devaluing banks' mortgage-backed assets, then simply helping people pay their mortgages would preserve the value of the mortgage-backed assets and recharge the market with liquidity. That would be a bottom-up solution helping the mass public, rather than a top-down move helping only financial industry executives.
On this latter proposal, some may argue that giving any relief to homeowners is "unfair" in that those homeowners created their problems, so why should taxpayers have to help them? But then, is helping homeowners any less fair than simply giving all the money away to Wall Street, no strings attached? I'd say no - and helping homeowners also serves a second purpose: namely, keeping people in their homes, which not only helps them, but helps an entire neighborhood (as any homeowner knows, nearby properties can be devalued when foreclosures hit).

4. ANY INCUMBENT VOTING FOR THIS PUTS THEMSELVES AT RISK OF BEING THROWN OUT OF OFFICE

As a preface, let me state that I think we live in a country where politicians too often listen to their donors and to the Establishment rather than their constituents, not the other way around. America is a country where our leaders dishonestly invoke the concepts of "Statesmanship" and "Seriousness" and their supposed hatred of "pandering" to justify ignoring what the public wants (as if giving the public what it wants is somehow not the objective of a democratic republic). So, in short, I don't think there's anything wrong with this bill being "politicized" by coming down the pike right before an election - in fact, I think it's a good thing because the election - and the fear of being thrown out of office forces our politicians to at least consider what the public wants. I mean, really - would we rather have this decision made after the election, when the public can be completely ignored?

Polls overwhelmingly show a public that sees voting for this bill as an act of economic treason whereby the bipartisan Washington elite robs taxpayer cash to give their campaign contributors a trillion-dollar gift. As just two of many examples, Bloomberg News' poll shows "decisive" opposition to the bailout proposal, and Rasmussen reports that their surveys show "the more voters learn about the proposed $700 billion federal bailout plan for the U.S. economy, the more they don’t like it."

Any sitting officeholder that votes for this - whether a Democrat or a Republican - should expect to get crushed under a wave of populist-themed attacks from their opponents. We've already seen it start. In Oregon, Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley (D) is airing scathing television ads hammering Republican incumbent Gordon Smith for potentially supporting the deal. Similarly, this morning on Meet the Press, we saw Republican Senate challenger Bob Schaffer (CO) dishonestly papering over his own votes for deregulation and ripping into his opponent Rep. Mark Udall (D) for potentially supporting the deal. Incumbents, get ready for that kind of election-changing heat in your face if you vote "yes."

This, by the way, could play out in the presidential contest. Barack Obama has been taking the advice of the Wall Street insiders in his campaign in endorsing this bailout. McCain has endorsed the vague outline, but he may ultimately back off once he sees the details, allowing him to then run the last month of the campaign as the economic populist in the race. I'm not saying it would work, considering McCain's 26-year record of supporting the deregulatory agenda that created this crisis. But such a move could end up help him flank Obama on the defining economic issues of the race.

5. CORRUPTION AND SLEAZE IS SWIRLING AROUND THESE BAILOUTS - AND AMERICA KNOWS IT

The amount of brazen corruption and conflicts of interest swirling around this deal is odious, even by Washington's standards - and polls suggest the public inherently understands that. Consider these choice nuggets:

Warren Buffett is simultaneously advising Obama to support the deal, while he himself is investing in the company that stands to make the most off the deal.
McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists from the companies that stand to make a killing off a no-strings government bailout.
The New York Times reports that the person advising Paulson and Bernanke on the AIG bailout was the CEO of Goldman Sachs - a company with a $20 billion stake in AIG.
The Obama campaign's top spokesman pushing this deal is none other than Roger Altman, who Bloomberg News reports is simultaneously "advising a group of investors who are trying to prevent their shares from being diluted in the U.S. takeover of American International Group Inc." - that is, who have a direct financial interest in the current iteration of the bailout.
Add to this the fact that the negotiations over this bill have been largely conducted in secret, and you have one of the most sleazy heists in American history.

[galileoreloaded]

54. The same finance industry that profits from people being in the market,

profiting from every trade, whether people lose money or not, or the same industry that needs some more money from Uncle Sugar??

[Zhade]

116. Um, he asked for *your* qualifications. Try again.

Or am I qualified to describe what's going on with NASA's internal affairs simply because my uncle works for them?

[western mass]

161. the same geniuses...

in the financy industry who rode this Ponzi scheme gravy train right into the canyon?

yeah, right! :) They have sooooooooo much credibility!

[Indiana_Dem]

I'm concluding you're right.

If we do nothing then all of the above you mentioned will occur and then there will also be people dying for lack of health care and medicine of which many people depend on these days unlike in the Great Depression. Think starvation. Think crime like you've never seen before.

Yes, it could happen in the long run anyway but who doesn't want the party to go on a little longer so that preparations can be made, certain survival skills can be learned?

If you don't get the drift yet, then I don't know what will wake you up!

[LWolf]

9. No, we're right.

A plan is needed, it's true. I don't advocate doing nothing. I just don't support THIS plan.

[Junkdrawer]

10. 100 Economists (Named by Signature) Against the Current Bailout Plan...

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:

As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:

1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.

2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.

3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.



Signed (updated at 9/25/2008 8:30AM CT)

Acemoglu Daron (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Adler Michael (Columbia University)
Admati Anat R. (Stanford University)
Alexis Marcus (Northwestern University)
Alvarez Fernando (University of Chicago)
Andersen Torben (Northwestern University)
Baliga Sandeep (Northwestern University)
Banerjee Abhijit V. (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Barankay Iwan (University of Pennsylvania)
Barry Brian (University of Chicago)
Bartkus James R. (Xavier University of Louisiana)
Becker Charles M. (Duke University)
Becker Robert A. (Indiana University)
Beim David (Columbia University)
Berk Jonathan (Stanford University)
Bisin Alberto (New York University)
Bittlingmayer George (University of Kansas)
Boldrin Michele (Washington University)
Brooks Taggert J. (University of Wisconsin)
Brynjolfsson Erik (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Buera Francisco J. (UCLA)
Camp Mary Elizabeth (Indiana University)
Carmel Jonathan (University of Michigan)
Carroll Christopher (Johns Hopkins University)
Cassar Gavin (University of Pennsylvania)
Chaney Thomas (University of Chicago)
Chari Varadarajan V. (University of Minnesota)
Chauvin Keith W. (University of Kansas)
Chintagunta Pradeep K. (University of Chicago)
Christiano Lawrence J. (Northwestern University)
Cochrane John (University of Chicago)
Coleman John (Duke University)
Constantinides George M. (University of Chicago)
Crain Robert (UC Berkeley)
Culp Christopher (University of Chicago)
Da Zhi (University of Notre Dame)
Davis Morris (University of Wisconsin)
De Marzo Peter (Stanford University)
Dubé Jean-Pierre H. (University of Chicago)
Edlin Aaron (UC Berkeley)
Eichenbaum Martin (Northwestern University)
Ely Jeffrey (Northwestern University)
Eraslan Hülya K. K.(Johns Hopkins University)
Faulhaber Gerald (University of Pennsylvania)
Feldmann Sven (University of Melbourne)
Fernandez-Villaverde Jesus (University of Pennsylvania)
Fohlin Caroline (Johns Hopkins University)
Fox Jeremy T. (University of Chicago)
Frank Murray Z.(University of Minnesota)
Frenzen Jonathan (University of Chicago)
Fuchs William (University of Chicago)
Fudenberg Drew (Harvard University)
Gabaix Xavier (New York University)
Gao Paul (Notre Dame University)
Garicano Luis (University of Chicago)
Gerakos Joseph J. (University of Chicago)
Gibbs Michael (University of Chicago)
Glomm Gerhard (Indiana University)
Goettler Ron (University of Chicago)
Goldin Claudia (Harvard University)
Gordon Robert J. (Northwestern University)
Greenstone Michael (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Guadalupe Maria (Columbia University)
Guerrieri Veronica (University of Chicago)
Hagerty Kathleen (Northwestern University)
Hamada Robert S. (University of Chicago)
Hansen Lars (University of Chicago)
Harris Milton (University of Chicago)
Hart Oliver (Harvard University)
Hazlett Thomas W. (George Mason University)
Heaton John (University of Chicago)
Heckman James (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Henderson David R. (Hoover Institution)
Henisz, Witold (University of Pennsylvania)
Hertzberg Andrew (Columbia University)
Hite Gailen (Columbia University)
Hitsch Günter J. (University of Chicago)
Hodrick Robert J. (Columbia University)
Hopenhayn Hugo (UCLA)
Hurst Erik (University of Chicago)
Imrohoroglu Ayse (University of Southern California)
Isakson Hans (University of Northern Iowa)
Israel Ronen (London Business School)
Jaffee Dwight M. (UC Berkeley)
Jagannathan Ravi (Northwestern University)
Jenter Dirk (Stanford University)
Jones Charles M. (Columbia Business School)
Kaboski Joseph P. (Ohio State University)
Kahn Matthew (UCLA)
Kaplan Ethan (Stockholm University)
Karolyi, Andrew (Ohio State University)
Kashyap Anil (University of Chicago)
Keim Donald B (University of Pennsylvania)
Ketkar Suhas L (Vanderbilt University)
Kiesling Lynne (Northwestern University)
Klenow Pete (Stanford University)
Koch Paul (University of Kansas)
Kocherlakota Narayana (University of Minnesota)
Koijen Ralph S.J. (University of Chicago)
Kondo Jiro (Northwestern University)
Korteweg Arthur (Stanford University)
Kortum Samuel (University of Chicago)
Krueger Dirk (University of Pennsylvania)
Ledesma Patricia (Northwestern University)
Lee Lung-fei (Ohio State University)
Leeper Eric M. (Indiana University)
Leuz Christian (University of Chicago)
Levine David I.(UC Berkeley)
Levine David K.(Washington University)
Levy David M. (George Mason University)
Linnainmaa Juhani (University of Chicago)
Lott John R. Jr. (University of Maryland)
Lucas Robert (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Luttmer Erzo G.J. (University of Minnesota)
Manski Charles F. (Northwestern University)
Martin Ian (Stanford University)
Mayer Christopher (Columbia University)
Mazzeo Michael (Northwestern University)
McDonald Robert (Northwestern University)
Meadow Scott F. (University of Chicago)
Mehra Rajnish (UC Santa Barbara)
Mian Atif (University of Chicago)
Middlebrook Art (University of Chicago)
Miguel Edward (UC Berkeley)
Miravete Eugenio J. (University of Texas at Austin)
Miron Jeffrey (Harvard University)
Moretti Enrico (UC Berkeley)
Moriguchi Chiaki (Northwestern University)
Moro Andrea (Vanderbilt University)
Morse Adair (University of Chicago)
Mortensen Dale T. (Northwestern University)
Mortimer Julie Holland (Harvard University)
Muralidharan Karthik (UC San Diego)
Nanda Dhananjay (University of Miami)
Nevo Aviv (Northwestern University)
Ohanian Lee (UCLA)
Pagliari Joseph (University of Chicago)
Papanikolaou Dimitris (Northwestern University)
Parker Jonathan (Northwestern University)
Paul Evans (Ohio State University)
Pejovich Svetozar (Steve) (Texas A&M University)
Peltzman Sam (University of Chicago)
Perri Fabrizio (University of Minnesota)
Phelan Christopher (University of Minnesota)
Piazzesi Monika (Stanford University)
Piskorski Tomasz (Columbia University)
Rampini Adriano (Duke University)
Reagan Patricia (Ohio State University)
Reich Michael (UC Berkeley)
Reuben Ernesto (Northwestern University)
Roberts Michael (University of Pennsylvania)
Robinson David (Duke University)
Rogers Michele (Northwestern University)
Rotella Elyce (Indiana University)
Ruud Paul (Vassar College)
Safford Sean (University of Chicago)
Sandbu Martin E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Sapienza Paola (Northwestern University)
Savor Pavel (University of Pennsylvania)
Scharfstein David (Harvard University)
Seim Katja (University of Pennsylvania)
Seru Amit (University of Chicago)
Shang-Jin Wei (Columbia University)
Shimer Robert (University of Chicago)
Shore Stephen H. (Johns Hopkins University)
Siegel Ron (Northwestern University)
Smith David C. (University of Virginia)
Smith Vernon L.(Chapman University- Nobel Laureate)
Sorensen Morten (Columbia University)
Spiegel Matthew (Yale University)
Stevenson Betsey (University of Pennsylvania)
Stokey Nancy (University of Chicago)
Strahan Philip (Boston College)
Strebulaev Ilya (Stanford University)
Sufi Amir (University of Chicago)
Tabarrok Alex (George Mason University)
Taylor Alan M. (UC Davis)
Thompson Tim (Northwestern University)
Tschoegl Adrian E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Uhlig Harald (University of Chicago)
Ulrich, Maxim (Columbia University)
Van Buskirk Andrew (University of Chicago)
Veronesi Pietro (University of Chicago)
Vissing-Jorgensen Annette (Northwestern University)
Wacziarg Romain (UCLA)
Weill Pierre-Olivier (UCLA)
Williamson Samuel H. (Miami University)
Witte Mark (Northwestern University)
Wolfers Justin (University of Pennsylvania)
Woutersen Tiemen (Johns Hopkins University)
Zingales Luigi (University of Chicago)
Zitzewitz Eric (Dartmouth College)

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm

[scheming daemons]

16. For each one of them, there's two that say it is needed

[Junkdrawer]

20. Names?

:shrug:

[Captiosus]

24. Wow, you get an "A" in "Making Blanket Statements 101"

and not backing them up with any proof.

I've yet to see any list of economists other than Buffett saying it's necessary. I do trust Buffett, but I don't see a single list of 200 economists promoting the bailout in any media outlet.

All you can do is regurgitate things you hear without providing proof.

[Junkdrawer]

34. And there's Three Nobel Laureates on my list..

But they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when compared to an anonymous DUer

[Zhade]

119. Kinda like the idiots who swallowed the WMD lies. Feels familiar, eh?

Ignorant posturing like displayed in the OP helped kill a lot of innocent Iraqis.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

41. I feel incapable of understanding the pros and cons of the present bailout proposal

Maybe if I had a Ph.D. in economics from a major school with the added knowledge of Wall Street (maybe not all economists understand Wall Street or specifically study the details of its inner workings) I could decide either way whether this bailout proposal is wise or not. In the meantime, I would prefer to defer to the opinion of experts who have nothing to gain. College Professors who have reputations to maintain to me are more reliable than political operatives or former CEOs. Paulson should recuse himself from this entire affair and the executive and legislative branches should appoint a neutral and disinterested arbiter to make the decisions under a bailout proposal.

If the weight of opinion among the LEADING economists in the nation comes out in favor of or against the bailout proposal, I would defer to them. Let's identify which ones support what.

[Zhade]

118. Prove your assertion - name them.

Otherwise, you're just making shit up because your argument is FAILING.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Count the Chicago BOYS and then TRY to connect dots

[redqueen]

133. Why am I so not surprised?

I knew by the timing and the character of the messengers who suddenly discovered that list that something was up.

*sigh*

[Waiting For Everyman]

176. Although I object to the current plan too,

there's an awful lot of "University of Chicago" in that list. Just noticing, that's all.

The telltale sign against the Paulson plan is scuttling the "loan modification in bankruptcy" provision. If it's so urgent there should be no dealbreaker, especially one that makes no sense to oppose, especially one that is the ONLY provision for Main Street.

The main point is... these ARE investors being bailed out. Investing is a risk, and they lost. Period. We should do what we need to with our banks, but that's a different issue. I think more confidence would be restored by taking them over, cleaning them out, and regulating the hell out of them. I'd look at JP Morgan first b/c it has 3/4 of the swaps by now. They are simply worthless. Nothing will change that. They're fictions.

[Sherman A1]

12. Okay, I am Wrong

and I still oppose the bailout. Things are going to get really bad and I really don't think this will make much difference.

[Captiosus]

13. Do you have a time machine?

I'm wondering because I'm waiting for your magical proof from the future that any of this will happen. Or, better yet, that any of this won't happen even with the bailout.

I don't know if you read or merely skimmed the bill, but this IS Paulson's bill, just bigger.

Things it does right:
Oversight, golden parachute caps, potential of investment to gain premiums from the assets, gradual step up in funds, judicial review.

Things left from the Paulson bill:
700 billion cap that's given fairly freely at the PRESIDENT'S request (Section 115(a)(1)(2)(3)).
Two year provision of authority possible to the Secretary of the Treasury (Section 120(b)).
Secretary of the Treasury the sole arbiter of public disclosure (Section 114(b)).

Things that are worse:
Loophole in the asset management and allowing financial institutions to get PAST market value on current troubled assets (Section 101(e)).

Still waiting for proof from your magical time machine to back up your statements, especially when a vast majority of economists are completely against this bailout.

[scheming daemons]

19. Don't need a time machine. Read up on the years 1929 to 1940 in the US.

You'll be reliving them if the bailout doesn't pass.

[Zhade]

120. "You'll be reliving them if the bailout doesn't pass." Not an established fact.

1) You don't know this to be true.

2) We've already seen that you are not qualified to assess this situation.

3) You CANNOT POSSIBLY know this to be true. It's literally impossible for you to state with certainty that your assertion would happen.

[Hannah Bell]

168. While they're telling the public they MUST have the $$ now -

they're telling the banks something different. Treasury conference call:


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/09/mussolini-style-corporatism-in-action.html

[Indiana_Dem]

23. Even if it doesn't work and it falls through, we won't have to worry about any debt

or anything because it will all be gone. We can start new with a new currency called the Amero which will know no borders on the American continent. At least we'd know we tried something despite hyperinflation or deflation or stagnation. There isn't any way out of it except to maybe prolong it, I think.

Just peering through my looking glass....:shrug:

[Hannah Bell]

162. I believe they gave everyone immunity from prosecution, too. :>)

[lamp_shade]

17. You're so right, S.D.

[Speck Tater]

22. The economy is hitting the wall at 90 MPH...

The bailout is the air bag on Wall Street's side of the car.

The air bag will not stop the crash. The crash is already happening, and will go right on happening. The best the bail out can do is slow it down just a little bit, and maybe cushion just a little bit of its impact. But the crash is still inevitable.

[ShortnFiery]

45. "The bailout is the air bag on Wall Street's side of the car."

Well put - what an horrific visual. ... while the American Taxpayer is sprawled across the hood of the car. :grr:

[tama]

173. Make that 140 MPH

and still trying to accelerate at full throttle. Air bag on drivers side will not save him.

[Greyhound]

25. You have anything to back that up? The latest version I see makes all the

eye-candy "protection" (as in "sure would be terrible if anything happened to your store") and assurances that the taxpayers can guarantee profits to the guilty.

It gives a political appointee unprecedented authority over the economy as well as the authority to declare any other provisions unreasonable.

[Beregond2]

26. I think you are right,

but that is entirely based on intuition and the opinions of people I trust. I freely admit to being economically illiterate. I doubt there is one person in a million who has the kind of mind capable of even focussing on something as deadly dull as economics, let alone understanding it. Which is unfortunate for a capitalisitc democracy. But then, that is why we have representational democracy, and not direct democracy; so we can elect people who DO have the kind of minds capable of coping with this arcane stuff. Having spent thirty years being raped by those same minds, it is difficult to muster up that kind of trust. But in the end, it does come down to trust. And if I didn't trust Obama and the Democrats, I wouldn't be advocating for them or voting for them. So there you are.

[Zhade]

122. "I freely admit to being economically illiterate." It's a shame the OP isn't as honest.

NT!

[still_one]

32. I don't think many appreicate what a complete lack liquidity would do to the system

No credit would be extended, and the world runs on credit. Business large and small go not get loans. Credit Cards would be useless to the people who need them most

Grocery Stores and other business which rely on credit to obtain their merchandise would go out of business

job losses would be catastrophic

I can understand those that wish the plan was different, but those that just say nothing should be done full of it

Unless they come up with an alternative that just complain are inane

The reality is that this problem was caused by deregulation, pushed by the republicans for years

however, the solution according to our laws will have to be done by both parties

[scheming daemons]

35. Thank you. You are right. Most Americans just don't get it. Kucinich, sadly, is one of them

[lostnotforgotten]

40. No Evidence Presented That What You Say Is True - All Conjecture

You forget that we learned last week that Bernanke and Paulson have been working on this plan for a year.

That in itself should scream SCAM!

[ShortnFiery]

47. So while the gullible democrats, some of them highly intelligent, THINK there's safeguards.

The taxpayer is going to take it in the financial shorts. More and more wealthy Americans and Wall Street will invest OVERSEAS and we, AMERICANS, will not have a pot to piss in, much less afford education or health care.

[lostnotforgotten]

49. Well That's What An Elctorate Gets That's Been Asleep At The Wheel For Twenty Years

One reaps what they sow.

[still_one]

63. Of course you are correct, the electorate has been asleep, but a lot of innocents

will get hurt if nothing is done

Luckely, something will be done. Hopefully, it will lessen the consequences

[dixiegrrrrl]

85. The electorate was awake, the votes were stolen.

[still_one]

57. This will affect everything worldwide, and it is NOT gullible Democrats

it is truely a financial meltdown if nothing is done

No thanks, I don't want another depression

[still_one]

53. There is evidence of an extreme liquidity crisis. Washington Mutual

was just one example

There was also a run on one of the oldest money market funds 9 days ago

This is major

there is a reason that a bailout will pass, and it will pass with both republicans and Democrats on board, because if they don't the consequence are a worldwide financial meltdown

What are you going to do when Obama votes for it?

[lostnotforgotten]

62. Probably Not Vote For Him For President - Democrats Lose Again

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Ah yes, vote for the republicans then?

Spite my nose and all that

[still_one]

78. Sorry, but most likely mccain will vote for it also, or not show up to vote

I guess there is always Nader

However, it should be very clear that there are other issues also, such as the Supreme Court, whcih are critical

I don't understand people who want to cut of their nose to spite their face

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. It is anger Still_one, pure anger

they are angry at the President who cried wolf one too many times and cannot see how this has evolved

Gets worst, when you ask them for solutions, mostly there are none... just let it fall so they get to my level.

Of course the other extreme is once the dems are elected all will be peachy keen... forgetting that the job of the citizen is to participate... and that we elect reps, not leaders

Now if our mutual acquaintance is in a deep blue state... go for it... feel better about it and perhaps do something good... if they live in a highly contested state... then that is a mistake

and it goes with faces, noses and all that

Of course there is this little thing about willful ignorance... you and I have known this was coming down the pike for years now. I've been holding my breath, realizing they were trying to hold it off until AFTER the election... didn't work and it is kind of a blessing... in the blame department

Reality is that the neoliberal philosophy is not limited to the pugs... but they will get the blame FULLY

Now to write a policy proposal in the restructuring of the system to highly regulate it.... as well as other structural changes...

More readying of legalese I fear in my future...

[still_one]

92. Your point is well taken. I am angry also,but I sure appreciate the consequences

Every reatailer that depends on credit for its inventory will be affected

Most likely it will pass though

The only ones that don't want it to are the shots, and those that don't appreciate the consequences

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. I am angry too... but many years ago I learned to temper it

and to not let it take over my actions.

As an EMS worker I had plenty of times to ahem loose it... and once I did... I was a young EMT... and the lesson of that was don't let helplessness take over, or that feeling that you want to strangle somebody.

The time I did was after a major explosion, cum MCI... the day after the place went up once again... and I just lost it... never a good thing

[girl gone mad]

102. I've got your solution right here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=114&topic_id=44442&mesg_id=44442

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. He is a Friedman Student, a chicago boy

care to tell me why the neoliberal wing of the Chicago School of economics is against this?

Though I find this kind of funny given the proposed legislation does this

The decisions that will be made this weekend matter not just to the prospects of the U.S.
economy in the year to come; they will shape the type of capitalism we will live in for the
next fifty years. Do we want to live in a system where profits are private, but losses are
socialized? Where taxpayer money is used to prop up failed firms? Or do we want to live
in a system where people are held responsible for their decisions, where imprudent
behavior is penalized and prudent behavior rewarded? For somebody like me who
believes strongly in the free market system, the most serious risk of the current situation
is that the interest of few financiers will undermine the fundamental workings of the
capitalist system. The time has come to save capitalism from the capitalists.

In fact, the proposed legislation is heavily influenced by New Deal Keynseian economics, which actually shocked me... and pleased me as well

[mhatrw]

194. Solution = nationalize the housing loan, healthcare and defense industries in one fell swoop.

Extend no guarantees to the fat cat speculators who got us in this mess, but federally insure 50% of the first $400,000 of individual's 401Ks until they can more their investments out of harm's way.

[still_one]

76. If you don't vote for Obama, then perhaps this isn't the site you should belong to. I suspect

you are caught up in the emotion of the debate and will reconsider

[lostnotforgotten]

88. Progressive Independent - Are You Dictating That I Have To Vote!

Get Real!

[still_one]

90. I am not dictating anything, I am just saying if you don't see the difference you lose /nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. They were working for a WHOLE YEAR on a THREE PAGE PLAN?

WOW....

Didn't know that.

What I know is that they have been mulling about this for TWO MONTHS

And that they have tried OTHER things to try to stabilize this over the course of the last three years... not just Paulson by the way

Those of us PAYING attention to this crisis know it didn't start last week... but its seeds are in the repeat of Glass Steegal and Reaganomics

We also know that things have been increasingly getting dicey for THREE YEARS at least

Most Muricans have NOT paid attention to any of this... that is the naked and cold truth

They just don't get it... how it will hurt them

What is more, many are so angry with the bushies (for good reason mind you) that ANYTHING coming out of the WH is suspect... NEVER MIND George has little to do with HOW this is moving

I know I am talking chinese to most people on this board... but AT LEAST some of the staffers I have talked to over the course of the last ten days HAVE A CLUE...

Oh and yes, if you google this... you will realize that some of us have been saying the fundamentals of a 1929 crisis have been in place for at least two years for the SAME FUCKING REASONS... damn all that readying in history ... I know...

What did Santayana write? Oh yes, those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it... guess what? The Murican people are about to get schooled once again on WHY you do not deregulate markets the way the right wanted to and mostly got done over the last 25 years, chiefly the last eight.

After that ...

This is all that is left

:banghead: and hope that AFTER this crisis people will realize why they need an education and need to stop despising them egg heads.

Oh and the American radical right WANTS more free market solutions since free market never causes this :sarcasm: in their anger so are many folks here... who are about to loose their noses.

Oh yes, ignorance is bliss I guess... NOT

[Myrina]

95. If they've been working on it for a year, one wonders:

... was this supposed to be the 'October Surprise' that saves the GOP ticket?

:shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. No, they have not been working on this for a year, but for two months

when they realized the last three years the crisis has not abated

I know I should heavily invest in tinfoil and not in education

This is the LAST THING these people needed, especially at this time

[Hannah Bell]

169. It's 110 pages.

[TexasObserver]

42. in a Democracy, 75% are right because they have 75%

It's a mistake for Democrats to save the public before the public wants saving.

It's a mistake to believe this situation is as big a crisis as claimed. If it were, the DOW would be at 9K, not 11K.

[jpgray]

55. By that logic, "yes" on the IWR was the correct vote in 2002

Moreover, "unpopular" issues like minority rights or separation of church and state would never have gotten off the ground.

[TexasObserver]

68. EPIC FAIL.

The public wasn't clamoring for War with Iraq in 2002 any more than it is clamoring for a bailout now. Both times, the congress was stampeded by a nervous, election fearing congress.

So you see, your analogy fails. EPIC FAIL.

[jpgray]

72. Here is a link for you. Note also the majority that believed Saddam was connected with 9/11

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5051

There's nothing intrinsic about a majority that makes their view correct, let alone a solid guide to action.

[girl gone mad]

145. oops.. didn't bother to read your own link.

Although most Americans favor military action against Iraq, the poll suggests most do not believe war is inevitable, and support for military action declines under certain circumstances.

Of those questioned, most (56%) say they believe "war still might be avoided." Moreover, of those who support military action, 43% say they would oppose "using military force against Iraq," if Saddam cooperates with "full and complete weapons inspections."

[TexasObserver]

151. Ha! Like I said, the public was not behind it. Democrats caved in.

I was livid at the time, too. It was so clearly an October cave in for Democrats. We became the War Party Lite, and that is why we lost the election.

[ShortnFiery]

43. No, we're not gullible. Any salesperson says "buy now" or "never," the smart consumer says "NEVER"

[jmodden]

44. are Bernie and Dennis wrong?

The only 2 people in DC I trust. ALL the rest are scum & have their hands out.

[NoUsername]

51. So nice of you to join us here, Nance.

Now don't you have a meeting to go to or something? Gotta go scare up them votes for tomorrow ya know.

[RainDog]

52. so, if all of your predictions happen even WITH the bailout

will you commit sepuku?

Posts like yours are so annoying. You have the nerve to tell others what nobel-prize-winning economists are unsure of themselves? The truth is that, with any bailout with oversight, we may find out about other large financial institutions that have been "guesstimating" themselves as solvent when they know the reality is otherwise. The economy may face yet more large crisis points that threaten liquidity and consumer/investor confidence.

that's what one economist is concerned about.

the bailout does nothing to address the underlying problems in this economy - those who bought too much mtg will still lose their homes. those who live in areas in which real estate prices are undergoing a reality check (and whose prices have been inflated by real estate speculators, in many cases) will still have houses that are worth less than their mtgs.

15 million people in the U.S. will still face the fact of financial disaster if they suffer from a major illness because they have no health insurance. Millions of Americans will still suffer because jobs that actually produce things have been shipped overseas and work to create alternative energy economies is stifled by oil company preferences and entitlements. Millions of Americans will suffer because they cannot find a job that pays a living wage.

The bailout of these institutions isn't the only solution - why should anyone intrust these same crooks after the mess they've made? To be really effective, I think we need some political/economic theater. A few CEOs out the window with no golden parachutes... just to send a message to financial players. Obviously they have no honor or the lot of them would have committed suicide as an honorable act.

How conveeeenient that, when Republicans look like they're going to be sent packing for a long time, financial institutions get bailed out for their greed and programs that benefit Americans will be set aside to deal with the mess the majority-republican-voting financial industry created. I think we're long overdue for some justice.

This bailout shows me that the U.S. is terminally corrupt -- that political and financial institutions in this nation cannot deal with the problems this nation faces because it is impossible to have an honest conversation about anything of substance. Emmanuel Todd predicted this moment for the USSR a good 15 years before it happened and he predicted a similiar failure of the U.S. empire 7 years or so ago.

Whatever the "powers-that-be" do, I assume it's wise for me to always act as tho they are the enemies of my well being, since this has been the case for so long.

I hope this does fix things, but I don't think it will.

[pokerfan]

59. Economists against the bailout

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/hancock/blog/2008/09/hopkins_economists_against_the.html">Hopkins economists against the bailout

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm">100 Economists (Named by Signature) Against the Bailout

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/701956.html">Economists say bailout plan is flawed and isn't needed

[Junkdrawer]

69. What do Nobel Laureates in Economics know about the Economy?

Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and George Bush are the ones to listen to...

[Zhade]

125. Not to mention misinformed posters who start ignorant snarky threads!

I mean, we should totally believe someone who probably fell for the WMD lies over leading economists!

[still_one]

73. In everyone of those links except the last one, they say something must be done

The last link is also one is the least credible

The first two links are arguing against the orginal plan, which no longer exists. It lasted about 1 hour after it was introduced

[pokerfan]

100. I guess we'll find out how they feel about this plan

after it's been voted into law. Apparently, there's no time for thinking.

[MilesColtrane]

137. Once a run on money market funds start (which began a week and a half ago)...

...things happen very quickly. An immediate infusion of Treasury money and the unheard of step of insuring these funds has temporarily held off the complete shut down of the economy for now.

When companies can't sell commercial paper, repurchase agreements, or short-term bonds they can't do things like buy manufacturing materials, or even meet payrolls.

Without access to money most companies will simply go under, some quickly, some slowly after laying off most of their employees.


On September 16, the Reserve Primary Fund, a large money market mutual fund, lowered its share price below $1 because of exposure to Lehman debt securities. This resulted in demands from investors to return their funds as the financial crisis mounted.<9> By the morning of September 18, money market sell orders from institutional investors totalled $0.5 trillion, out of a total market capitalization of $4 trillion, but a $105 billion liquidity injection from the Federal Reserve averted an immediate collapse.<10> On September 19 the U.S. Treasury offered temporary insurance (akin to FDIC insurance of bank accounts) to money market funds.<11>

[pokerfan]

150. A week and a half?

Things have been falling to pieces for a year and a half. Eight hundred thousand lost jobs. A million foreclosures. No action or even concern from the government until it touches Wall Street. Then and only then did they wake up.

Makes one wonder who this government answers to because it sure as hell doesn't seem to be the people.

[FreakinDJ]

65. Can't have the Tax Payer's money without protecting their assets

You want me to fund the derivitives that "Drive the Foreclosures", reduce the hard earned equity in my home - Your as crazy as a Freeper

Until the language is "Stiffened" to protect home owners I'm against it

[Bushwick Bill]

66. Hurts to see well-intentioned Americans supporting Goldman Sachs BS.

Oh well.

If you don't support this, we all fail!!!!!

Oh noes!!!!

These fools can't even justify the $700 bill figure.

If my choices are financial collapse with or without the bailout, I choose without.

[dailykoff]

67. Bush logic.

Fail.

[wtmusic]

74. Who the hell are you?

Are you an economist? What's your background?

Pretty strong opinions for a post with no support and no links. Especially with claims like "Bankrupcies (sic) will soar." :rofl:

[Zhade]

126. A completely unqualified enabler of economic terrorism, that's who.

NT!

[sendero]

77. no..

... YOU are wrong, and a few months from now after the "bailout" is executed and things go to hell anyway, I'll remind you. Idiot.

[onenote]

80. Bookmarked

I guess we'll revisit this in a "few" months...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

87. Yeah. And, going to war in Iraq was absolutely necessary to save us.

And, congress giving the Pentagon $600bn, while charging us $700bn to "save us" is absolutely necessary.

[still_one]

91. Interesting note, the majority of Americans were also wrong about invading Iraq /nt

[RainDog]

94. I was against the invasion

and I am against the bailout as it now stands. so I guess that makes it okay for me to have an opinion.

the truth is that people are against the bailout for a variety of reasons. those who were for going into Iraq were pretty much of one mind because of all the lies and the forged documents and the bought-and-paid-for ex generals... that sort of thing.

Frankly, I don't give a shit if the majority of Americans is for or against this because, after 8 years, I no longer believe the American people have a fucking clue. That doesn't mean they're not right sometimes, tho.

so the argument really doesn't hold for most all here on DU because so many were also against the Iraq invasion.

[still_one]

99. I was aganst the invasion, but the majority wasn't. All I was pointing out

was that the majority is not always right

[Hannah Bell]

163. No majority supported unilateral war - ever, before it started.

"Prior to the March 19, 2003 start of the war only 45% of Central New Yorkers supported a war without United Nations approval, according to a Post-Standard poll (March 16, 2003). 39% opposed the war. The Post-Standard goes on to say that the local poll’s results were quite similar to national Zogby polls taken earlier in March."

http://www.peacecouncil.net/pnl/03/720/720_FAQ.htm

...polls show that the majority of Americans oppose a unilateral war without UN approval...
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0313-NoWar.html

And to the extent people did support it, it was after an intensive & duplicitous propagada campaign featuring talk of mushroom clouds & breathless non-stop reporting on phony terror threats.

[FirstLight]

93. Six one way, Half dozen the other

Look, even IF this just stays the execution of our economy as we know it...at least it buys me time to stock up on food, seeds, ammo, etc...right?


god, I don't want it to come to that. Can't we just change the way we do this economy thing without the damage and danger?

I can hope....

[magellan]

96. Guess we'll find out who's wrong and who isn't

Because this sucker is going through whether we like it or not.

I'll be pleased to admit I was wrong if the bailout saves us from economic meltdown. Will you do the same if the reverse is the case?

[whatchamacallit]

97. Total Bullshit

Have a nice day.

[Odin2005]

98. It is a fallacy to claim that something is true just because it is popular.

So I have to agree with the OP. Truth is not determined by popularity.

[girl gone mad]

101. All that you have brought to this discussion..

is unfounded hysteria.

You've also admitted that you have 3 family members with a vested interest in this bailout.

Sorry, no sale.

[New Dawn]

103. No thanks, the super-rich have already stolen enough of our money.

They can go get fucked.

[Zhade]

105. No, we're not. Nor were we wrong about the Iraq war.

Sucks to be in the gullible majority, doesn't it?

[Neshanic]

110. Really? There was no other way? No other plan? Just this one? Only one solution?

All the great minds in the world, and this was the ONLY way to attack this problem.

Very sad if we underestimate ourselves so much.

[yellerpup]

111. That's why we have to elect the smartest ones we can find.

That's why every single person doesn't get a vote on every single issue. I'm not qualified to sort out this mess. I don't like paying for it, but the alternative of doing nothing is far more destructive. Be good to each other and be brave. We'll get through.

[Hannah Bell]

165. Yeah, let the smart guys who got us into this (like paulson, former

goldman boss) get us out! That's the ticket!

I bet their plan will be very beneficial to the little guy.

Like those mortgages.

[yellerpup]

184. We didn't elect Paulson. eom

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

112. You're Absolutely Correct.

The majority are against it because the majority are uninformed as to the very real consequences that loom. Most people are clueless as it relates to economics. All they understand here is "Give how much money to them? Fuck that!". But that's shortsighted and ignorant, but also all they are exposed to at this point. Those of us that understand it enough and open our minds enough to absorb and learn the new things we must in order to understand the situation, know full well that some sort of bailout action is needed immediately.

[RainDog]

121. you are so fucking clueless about what people think

you invent explanations as straw men that you can knock down.

the truth is that many people do not think the current plan will work. the mkts need reassurance from the govt at this point but the bail out as now proposed is not a good plan. as of now, Paulson is hiring contractors to fix this... and we all know how well the bush administration managed their contractor deals in Iraq. Last I heard, soldiers were still getting electrocuted b/c of shoddy work by KBR in the soldiers' baths. Not to mention all the tax dollars Halliburton took while doing substandard work all across Iraq.

many small and large banks are doing quite well - those that made sound banking decisions - they are liquid, they extend loans. they deserve consumer confidence.

you do not know if this bailout will stop further bank failures from banks that are already insolvent but whose real books have not been made available. you do not know that this infusion will not create hyperinflation, or stagflation.

"those of you" who are trying to say that you know more than 100 economists are a joke.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

128. Actually, I'm Pretty Much Spot On.

But thanks for tryin.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

131. And There Are 100 Scientists That Claim There Is No Global Warming Either.

You have the nerve to think you know more than those 100 scientists? :wow:

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[girl gone mad]

146. How many Nobel Prize winning climatologists are among them?

Of course we all know that the list of "scientists" opposed to global warming consists mostly of individuals in unrelated fields.

[RainDog]

183. they don't deny global warming. they say it's cyclical, not man made

and they want to deal with it by planning to help the people who will need the most help. they don't deny global warming at all.

I had a link to this fact in my post that was deleted because of my rude, crude, lewd and socially unacceptable sarcasm.

we will see how this all plays out.

beyond the "experts" on DU-

I dealt with Bush, et al by acting on my understanding of their basic corruption. I took money given to my kids as presents and moved it into euros soon after he took office and recently used that money toward paying college expenses - this was the purpose for the money. I got a 43% return on their investment.

I have already acted this year, for my own life, based upon this same understanding of the basic corruption of the U.S. system. This week I plan to do other things - I am not someone to give any professional advice, so I will not go into detail - except to say that I have no faith in the short term prospects of our economic system. If I had 10 years to wait through a bad cycle I would do other things, but with some funds, I want personal liquidity, no matter what does or doesn't happen based upon the crony capitalism that is a hallmark of republican economic policy.

[mhatrw]

196. Show us the ones in favor of the current plan, then.

What a surprise to see you flacking for Wall Street.

[fla nocount]

132. I want to see a DU poll reflecting OMC's "spot onyness." n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

134. Why?

DU polls are worthless and you know it.

[tkmorris]

149. So is your declaration that you're right

At least a DU poll is unlikely to suffer from megalomania.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

113. What fear mongering BS.

Sorry, but this late in Chimpy's nightmarish reign that only works on about 25% of the population.

What are you worried about anyway? Do you really think that this time the will of the people might somehow actually carry the day? Do we now, all the sudden, have Congress' ear?

They'll drop trou, bend over, grab ankles, and rush through some ill conceived taxpayer fleecing monstrosity of one sort or another -- business as usual.

I'm sure you needn't worry about a thing.

[YankmeCrankme]

114. I'm curious, if this is just a liquidity problem why doesn't the US resolve it directly?

The US government could set up a temporary dept or bank, if you will, that would loan the money to banks and businesses that are facing liquidity problems and after a rigorous review of their books using regular good loan practices, not buying bad paper. Financial businesses that are solvent would get the loans they need and business would transpire as normal. Those that aren't would either fail or receive the loan with much more stringent conditions.

Your analogy of a fire, by the way, is faulty logic. This isn't a fire and even if it was, you don't give the arsonist the resources to start more fires to try and put this one out. The arsonists usually are investigated and when caught, taken to trial and, hopefully, convicted and sentenced to prison.

There isn't anything that I've seen that goes into detail on what specific steps will be used to ascertain the value of these investments, no specifics on what new oversight regulations will be enforced, no specifics on how compensation will be limited, no specifics on how to help mortgage holders to not default, which makes buying these worthless mortgage bundled investments useless, because that is what will continue to cause them to lose value, no specifics on who will be making these determinations, and so on. This bill is nothing more that generalities.

Plus, I certainly don't trust this administration to do anything fairly, competently or in the spirit of what's best for the country. I'm glad you do, but I don't. And please don't say it will be better because the Dems are in charge. This is a group of people that can't get subpoenas enforced (I'm still waiting on Bolton, Meyers and Rove to show up for their hearings), how are they going to get this bill or regulations on the financial institutions enforced?

[girl gone mad]

147. That's one option which should be debated.

[western mass]

155. Shhhh! Stop mentioning alternatives!

Funny how this taxpayer bailout is the only option we're hearing about to avert this crisis?

Putting aside the fact that it is a hypothetical and grossly exaggerated crisis, why aren't we even hearing about alternative ways to pay for the bailout, like an increase in capital gains tax and upper-level income tax? or maybe cuts in military spending?

There's a reason why this is being rammed through without debate. Careful consideration and examination of alternatives would be lethal to this swindle.

[Hannah Bell]

170. Wouldn't be as profitable to the right people. But you knew that.

[earth mom]

123. Wrong. Make that 95% of the people are against it. The 5% for it are * Co supporters.

Which is of course why the bullshit bailout got passed. :puke:

[Individualist]

124. Damn the DLC!

[fla nocount]

127. Re-loading the loose cannon that just sprayed the deck is being clueless...

and sorry, just plain wrong. Am I being condescending towards yet another self-styled expert and enabling blue-dog that would cast the scales from our eyes and lead us into the light, yep.

Us ignorant folk don't know much, but we do possess enough wit to secure and aim a loose cannon before we load another round into it.

[upi402]

135. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. LET THE RICHEST 2% PAY THE EXTORTION!

FUCK YOU

[Initech]

138. Wow, the "sky is falling" people are out in full force today.

:yoiks:

Yeah, I can see where the bailout is necessary but I also dont want to hand the corporate criminals on Wall St. a blank check to do whatever the fuck they want. That's what I'm against. We've seen it before. We'll see it again. Unless we stop these motherfuckers, the cycle will continue.

[shanti]

139. and you're still

falling for the "blank check" meme....that's so friday!

[Initech]

142. That's exactly what this is.

I still have no clue what this money is going to be used for. I heard on the radio the other day that $700 billion, if paid to the tax payers would give out $260,000 ($450,000 before taxes) to every tax payer over 18. That's how you stimulate the fucking economy.

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

140. "there will be 15% unemployment... 10% inflation"

what makes you think there isn't 15% unemployment and 10% inflation now? I know several people, some in my immediate family that just got layed off.

If it is so dire that this happens or the whole financial system will fall apart, I want every banking executive to immediate refund all bonus's and salary over $500,000, and I am being generous here. If anyone thinks I am going to approve the use my money to bail out these greedy overpaid schmucks who bankrupted the USA, while I am looking at a healthcare premium of $700 (monthly) that i am suddenly solely responsible for that could eventually cause me to make a choice between coverage and my mortgage, they are crazy.

No tax payer bailout.

Did I mention my bank recently went under. Old executive got 20 million for failure. New executive got 18 million for something like 12 weeks of work. Hell no to the bailout.

[scarletwoman]

143. WMD! MUSHROOM CLOUD! WMD! MUSHROOM CLOUD! WMD! MUSHROOM CLOUD! WMD! MUSHROOM CLOUD! nt

[gopbuster]

144. The shadow banking system is unravelling

Even though I don't agree with his premise of "Because of a greater regulation of banks"

He details what is happening and what could happen. The Fed as "lender of last resort" attempted to stem the tide. Roubini is respected grassroots.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/622acc9e-87f1-11dd-b114-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1

And yes I am angry about this too.

[mdmc]

148. I disagree

but I am also ignorant, and perhaps "wrong". But it makes no sense to me, and I have no voice in the matter. So let the corporations have their welfare if it will stop my house from burning down :shrug:

[Truth2Tell]

152. You have absolutely no idea

if any of that booga booga you just shit all over the floor is true.

Absolutely no fucking idea.

Cheap fear mongering.

Boo!

[girl gone mad]

156. Exactly.

Anyone who is claiming that they know precisely what the outcome will be is full of shit.

[western mass]

153. Falling for 9-11 hysteria - all over again!

Isn't it amazing how we've seen this movie before?

Bushco scream how america is on the brink of doom - we have to act now!

Dems fall in line and rubber stamp the Patriot Act and Iraq War Resolution - we have to act now!

Americans are too easy. Stir up hysteria and ram through the right-wing agenda, with Democratic collaboration.

We are about to see the crown jewel of the right-wing agenda: the greatest upward transfer of wealth in history, and a defunding of American government for years to come.

[scarletwoman]

154. Actually, as the OP states, the majority of Americans are AGAINST this bailout.

They're NOT being fooled this time around. But it seems a fair number of DUers are, which is just pathetic.

sw

[robinlynne]

157. OR the big corporations and rihest 2% can pay retroactively the taxes they have avoided for the past

8 years. That would be just as much money.
YOU ARE WRONG.

[ContinentalOp]

158. Within 6 months!?

I thought the shit was going to hit the fan by Monday? Tomorrow. Now you say 6 months? That's fine, President Obama and the Democratic congress will have 3 months to fix the problem.

[Land Shark]

159. No reason to put out a fire by the METHODS being used here.

It's PRECISELY THE DESPERATION expressed in the OP that makes the details of the bill an even worse nightmare than should even be possible.

Like, even if a constitutional violation of rights is PROVEN against the secretary, congress commands that any enforcement of said constitutional rights is STAYED until the Secretary of the Treasury exhausts his or her will to appeal. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4116021

That, and other provisions that don't need to be a part of dealing with the substantive crisis, are poison pills -- to say the least, that come with whatever good is in the bill.

[scarletwoman]

160. "If you're in the 75% of America that is against this bailout bill..." then you know

which side of the Class War you belong on.

sw

[lostnfound]

164. Who cares if it gets us a Republican congress and President Palin?

How much harm could that do, really..

[tama]

166. What is wrong

is "financial well-being" - it's contrary to humane well-being.

[eridani]

167. Why does it have overrides to the Constitution, then?

What in fucking hell does that have to do with liquidity? From another DU post--


1. The Sec. of Treasury can violate all statutes with impunity, & no one can sue.

2. Even if you prove a constitutional violation in court, Congress stays any order in your favor PROVING A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION until the secretary is done appealing -- or doesn't want the stay.

3. So, in effect, after you take a Constitutional whipping for months or years in appellate courts, and if you finally win in the trial court and the final court of appeal, you will get no money -- just an equitable order for the Secretary to stop violating your CONSTITUTIONAL rights (an equitable injunction).

4. But, even then, he can always keep on violating your statutory rights, forever.

[tama]

172. Being condescending

Wimps want to bail out their slave masters from their self destruction, cause they cannot imagine other way of life than slavery and fear liberty.

[El Pinko]

174. Un-kick, un-rec.

We know our financial well-being is at stake - which is why we don't just want another heapin' helpin' of what caused this mess - DEBT.

When the congress crafts a bill to actually address the cause of this - TOO FEW JOBS, and TOO-LOW/STAGNANT PAY FOR MOST PEOPLE, then I will support it, even if it includes a bailout.

We have got to have a FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE from the tax-cuts-for-the-rich+NAFTA model. It is turning America into a third-world country, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

[ShortnFiery]

177. Bullshit! No Bail out! Pelosi is a Corporations First Crony.

:grr:

[depakid]

178. The ignorance and anger persists I see

My guess is that like some others, you probably have nothing- and want everyone else to lose what they've got as well.

[MadHound]

180. Yes, you're being a condescending asshole,

However the best part of your smug, smarmy self serving drivel is that you're wrong, completely and utterly wrong.

If this plan goes through, the rating on US Treasury bonds goes down, down, down. People won't be buying up US debt, the same debt that we use to finance our government. No government spending on Social Security, on defense, on welfare checks and infrastructure. Get the picture? NO MONEY.

This, in and of itself would cause a financial storm worse than any depression. In a depression, we would at least have the ability to borrow our way out of it. We won't have that option.

But consider the fact that you're going to be adding a massive amount of liquidity to the system. Say hello to high inflation, perhaps even hyper inflation. Not a good scenario.

Taken together this is the perfect economic storm that will wreck our economy and destroy our country.
Already some commercial houses are downgrading bonds. Moody's was issuing a possible downgrade warning last January, well before we had this current debt load. What do you think will happen once we take on this extra debt?

But hey, congratulations on being one of the suckers who, once again, had a quick one pulled on them by Bush. One would think you would learn after the second time.

[Imagevision]

186. Most Americans believe there won't be a second 700 BILLION coming down the pike afterwards...

just like Iraq, Cheney said the war would pay for itself... Paulson pulled the 700BILLION figure out of the air and admitted that he could be wrong, so don't be surprised when Bush goes oops! I did it again...

[newtothegame]

187. I'm not sure about this...

But I would like to be able to collection my paycheck at work over the next few months.

[mhatrw]

188. Give them their trillions with no strings attached or they'll shoot all of our kittens!

[Naturyl]

189. No, you are wrong, and your side failed.

Now we can create a *better* bill.

Let's start by looking at what Sanders and Kucinich have to say.

[Dr Fate]

190. Maybe some of that 75% needs a bailout for themselves. I know I do.

I would support a bailout if it included something for me- like a bailout of my student loans, for instance.

I dont think people are wrong for not trusting Bush, or for wanting a bailout for the middle class instead of one for millionare bankers.

If this is really all about *my* financial well being, then give *me* a bailout- not some millionare (billionare?) bankers who already have plenty of money in their private funds...

If this is really about the financial future of the middle class & small businesses, then give $700 Billion dollars worth of relief & benefits directly to them-minus the trickle & middlemen...

[shadowknows69]

195. Then our "Representatives" should allow us to be wrong

Forgive me if I'm for the people we put in power doing as we say for a change.

[timtom]

197. How about a reasonable bailout plan instead?

Cut the cords on golden parachutes, benefit Mr. and Mrs. Front Porch...

[cui bono]

198. No YOU are.

naner naner naner.

Way to start an engaging discussion. Nevermind that there are respected economists who think this is a terrible plan as written.

WTF makes you so high and mighty thinking you know best?

:eyes:

[Cronus Protagonist]

199. It's called the "BUSH BAIL OUT"

And that's even on Fox News. The markets will adjust, the banks will lend, the street sweepers will get paid, our trash will get picked up, the fishmongers will smell of fish, and so does this Bush Bailout Bill.

[JVS]

200. Your bailout plan will destroy the country!

[depakid]

201. What a shallow, stupid and simple-minded thing to say

not to mention false and inaccurate.

[JVS]

202. Oh look. Ignored has already responded!

[Bryn]

203. You mean we should give 700 billion dollar bailout QUICKLY..FAST...NOW without questions?

Great idea! That will make banks and credit card companies happy and then they will turn around and suck us dry more than ever with illegal bogus charges, bogus charges, etc. that they pick out of air just to make more money for themselves. Still no health care for Americans.

There should be regulations first. Better Bankruptcy laws. There should be health care system. Even insurance companies are crooks.

Handing 700 billion dollars too easy without a question, without regulations is stupid.

I am willing to go for chaos before the order.