Everyone who supported the bailout check in here.

[reflection]

and please let us know if you still support it.

:argh:

[scheming daemons]

1. I support the language of the bailout bill that was signed

The fact that Paulson is not following that language SHOULD be illegal.


January 20th can't get here fast enough.

[reflection]

2. Amazing. Only one DUer!

I could have sworn I heard a lot of people telling us we were dooooooomed if it didn't pass.

Thank you for your honesty. I mean that.

[leftofthedial]

32. you're a fan of pork?

as I recall, there was language in the bailout giving huge pork handouts to bribe repukes.

[Renew Deal]

151. You were warned.

But you chose to trust these guys. Now we all suffer.

[reflection]

3. kick

100 views and one supporter. Surely it wasn't 1%...

[Mike 03]

27. My apologies, I just saw this thead a few moments

ago. I'm so pleased someone has made this post.

[reflection]

31. Actually, *my* apologies.

Your similar thread preceded mine by one minute. I should have posted in it.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I'll reply

I wasn't a *supporter*.

In fact, I asked at the time what the right thing to do might be. I don't understand economics in the sense that I know what might cure the problems we faced.

I still don't know.

I do know that the opinions of a lot of internet message board posters are pretty far out there, too.

So .... was I a supporter?

No.

I was (and continue to be) a hoper.

I'm hoping it will get better when the criminals are gone.






Oh ..... and I sincerely think Paulson is way over his head and has no fucking clue what he's doing. He may as well be a poster on an internet message board.

[reflection]

5. Most of us, myself included

don't understand economics to the extent required to make an "informed" decision on the bailout.

All I know is that when Paulson poked his head up with a 3-page letter saying "give us the money or we're doomed," I know my BS meter pegged out.

[JonLP24]

6. I never based my decision on internet board posters

When Dennis Kucinich said the bailout was immoral that told me everything I needed to know about it. Including the fact that him, the congresswoman from Illinois, and the congressman from Oregon was working overtime(about 8pm pacific) fighting the bill.

[reflection]

8. Dennis Kucinich

is the closest thing to a truth barometer as you can get.

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. When bu$h said that it had to happen right now, or else.., I knew

it wouldn't benefit anyone but his corrupt corporate cronies and the rest of us were screwed.

[Hubert Flottz]

7. Here is what I thought when the story came out...

Bush and his gang of crooks and thieves have yet to tell the truth about anything, so this "Bail-Out" is probably another crock of shit also.

[liberalmuse]

9. I didn't support it, but I supported Obama when he supported it.

It still makes me angry. I guess Obama thought the Bush cabal would behave ethically for ONCE, but that wasn't the case, was it?

[reflection]

11. No, it wasn't the case at all.

And I have no idea why Obama, or anyone else, would think that Bush would behave ethically. He has shown no proclivity to ever do that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. I Support It Fully In Theory. I Don't Support The Antics That Happened Today.

I haven't had much time to learn about the issue that happened today, but it sounds like it's a bunch of bullshit.

[reflection]

13. What antics are you referring to?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Paulson's.

[reflection]

18. Can you elaborate?

You mean his switch from buying questionable bank securities to funding nonbank financial entities, or something else?

[Mike 03]

29. I couldn't agree with you more. Today was a disaster. NT

[librechik]

30. In theory--aren't you the one who famously said "THANK GOD IT PASSED!"

it seems you are a little disappointed re: the actual unfolding?

ready to come down off the high horse of vehemence?

maybe not.

IMO, the "antics" have been going on since the first proposal, or sooner.

Paulson should have recused due to conflict of interest.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

56. In Theory Meaning If It Is Used As Stated It Would Be Used.

I haven't read enough about today's events, but it sounds like bullshit a bit. But as far as it's initial passage and necessity? Absolutely. It was and still is necessary, and the damage would be far worse today had it not been passed.

[Zhade]

108. Well, he gave his own answer as to why he did...

"I haven't had much time to learn about the issue"

Sounds about par for the course.

[Marrah_G]

123. I also said "Thank god it passed"- it is not being implemented as in the way it was sold

Am I pissed- sure am.

Do I regret my words at the time. Nope.

[earth mom]

34. Don't lie. You were one of the bailouts biggest cheerleaders around DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4161334#4163763

:puke:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. Ummmm, Mr.Simpleton... Did I Not Just Say I Supported It?

Pay attention son.

[Bucky]

60. You got big balls calling yourself "The Golden Rule"

The guy says "I support the bailout in theory" and you respond "Don't lie, You were one of its biggest cheerleaders".

Dude, do you really not read what people post before attacking them?

[earth mom]

105. FYI-Calling people out like you are doing is against DU rules.

But if you'd read my sig line you'd see that my user name is directed at * & Co and not about myself.

However it is a motto that I do believe in and practice in my real life. But that doesn't mean I don't call people on their lies and b.s. for the sake of being nice instead of truthful.

And that being said, when someone posts a rah rah thread like the one I linked to and then says they didn't really support the bailout, that is obviously a bold faced lie.

Btw, do YOU even read what people post before attacking them?

[Marrah_G]

126. Sort of like what you were doing with OMC- right?

[earth mom]

147. I didn't call OMC names. That's the difference. nt

[Marrah_G]

125. This post is a lie.

[earth mom]

149. OMC posted a huge thread that was rah rah the bailout & then said he wasn't for it.

So you say that wasn't a lie.

So what was it? A "fib" or was OMC just being "disingenuous"? :eyes:

[Marrah_G]

152. where did he say he wasn't for it?

[earth mom]

155. He posted a thread applauding the bailout. Get a clue & stop playing games. nt

[Initech]

14. I didnt. I knew it was going to bail out the corporate criminals and not the people who need it.

Look at the shit AIG has been pulling since they got the money. :grr: :argh: :banghead:

[Deep13]

15. I agree with it, if that is what you mean.

I have not done anything actively to support it.

[mhatrw]

21. You agree with privatizing the US Treasury to the tune of $3.45 trillion?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4448654&mesg_id=4448654

[Deep13]

37. No, I agree with spending $700B to shore up the financial system. nt

[ProfessorGAC]

17. I Opposed It

It didn't address the fundamental structural issues that caused the problem, so it's a bandaid on a bullet wound. I didn't support it then, and i don't support it now. I only support solutions that actually correct the problem.
The Professor

[TBF]

19. I valiently fought against it (do a search on my user name to confirm)

and I wonder where all those supporters went. They are probably trying to figure out what happened to their 401K's. Clue: the fat cats on wall street are getting their bonuses this year & you aren't.

[reflection]

23. That steams me so bad I can't see straight.

My 401K has been eviscerated and these subhuman pieces of garbage are getting bonuses. I honestly don't know what to do. I guess there's nothing to do but laugh or cry.

[Bucky]

20. Since most of it will be managed by President Obama... Sure, I still support it.

[mhatrw]

24. They have already spent $3.45 trillion! How much is left to be "managed" by Obama?

We hardly have a nation left to be managed by Obama:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4448654&mesg_id=4448654

[Bucky]

55. Remember that much of the bail out was the government buying shares in banks

I can't imagine that won't come without a hell of a lot of leverage--moreso than what a president already has.

Yes, Obama will do well enough managing this Bush crisis. We always clean up their messes.

[mhatrw]

66. What leverage does it come with? Paulson already gave out the money

with no strings attached.

[reflection]

25. Obama will arrive just in time to survey the carnage.

Although I hope I am wrong, I don't think your optimistic scenario will come true. Then again, what do I know. I'm an engineer, not an economist.

[Mike 03]

22. I supported the original bail out text as it was published following the

hearings before the Senate Banking Committee.

I can no longer support it because of what happened this morning.

Thank you for this thread!

[Johonny]

26. The horrible application of the bailout

basically supports why congress needed to remove Bush from office. Impeachment was the only solution to this poorly an executive branch.

[amitta]

28. there are people who STILL support the bait?

even after the switch?
wow.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[RoyGBiv]

35. This is a trick question ...

There no longer is "a" bailout.

People in the media (and on DU, who are being informed by the media) are conflating "the" rescue bill with actions of the Fed with actions of the Treasury independent of the so-called "bailout."

As long as that continues, no substantive discussion will take place.

If your question is whether I supported the Emeergency Economic Stabilization Act, then, yes, I did with a number of reservations, said reservations being the same ones that *everyone* who supported it held.

I will add that the first purpose of the bill, which was the main reason anyone supported it at all, was to loosen the credit markets so that a total and immediate collapse did not occur. I will note that TED is now below 2, down from nearly 5 at the time the bill was passed, and that this is a positive sign that this intent has had some measure of success. The "bailout" is not, was not, and never will be a cure for any of the actual problems. It is merely a stopgap, one that was sorely needed at the time.

The next step will be a raft of legislation to re-regulate the various markets, and, more immediately, a massive stimulus package.

[rhett o rick]

36. Once again, my rule of thumb: IF BUSH SUPPORTS IT, THEN YOU MUST OPPOSE IT.

You must admit, statistically this is the best decider.

[RoyGBiv]

42. Statistically, yes ...

But I inform my opinions of such things from paying attention to people who actually do have some clue what they're talking about. Bush not being one of those, he mostly serves as a bellwether when expert voices are lacking. Expert voices on this issue are not lacking, and while opinion among the non-Friedman contingent is certainly something less than unanimous, the general consensus was at the time that *something* had to be done quickly, and if that was the best we could get, it was the best we could get. We don't have to like it, but the alternative -- doing nothing at all -- was unacceptable.

And, for the record, I have yet to be convinced that Bush so much supported this as he was forced into supporting it and is for all intents and purposes going through the motions at this point. He's lost control, both due to his lame duck status and his administration's opening a can of worms so massive that they've panicked. Paulson and Bernanke are the people In Charge at the moment. Paulson needs to go home, but Bernanke at least has the knowledge of what needs to be done. Whether he'll go through with it is another question, but it's not answered yet.

[lumberjack_jeff]

101. What Bush does is in his personal interest. My personal interest is 180° from that.

It's more than statistically useful, it's foolproof.

[reflection]

39. Thank you for correcting me.

Yes, my post title should have been, "everyone who supported the EESA check in here."

That being said, I think those who had deep reservations as to how the program would be implemented are being validated in spades today. Cold comfort, though.

[RoyGBiv]

45. How are they being validated?

Something took place that none of them predicted?

Oh, they will claim they predicted it, but having been deeply involved in those discussions, I have not seen one thing happen that those individuals "predicted," and I've seen quite a bit happen they claimed would *never* take place, e.g. the drop in the TED, which, as mentioned both then and now, was the first sign that the bailout's limited purpose was having some impact.

[girl gone mad]

57. I don't know anyone who didn't think..

it would improve the TED spread. Just that an improvement in TED would do little to save the economy and the terms of TARP were horrible for the American taxpayer and there should have been healthy debate rather than the chaotic last minute rush. Treasury admitted they had plans drawn up months in advance, why wait until the last hour before congress recessed to swoop in and demand immediate action "or else"?

TED is at currently 1.98, still about 400% above "normal". However, the A2P2 spread is worsening,the yield on 3 month treasuries is still falling, Libor is still too high. Even after throwing nearly half a trillion dollars at the problem, we're hardly out of the water.

[RoyGBiv]

64. Oh, I understand that ...

We're not even to the point where we might be able to start looking for the possibility of maybe at some point thinking we see land ... much less being actually out of the water.

I do know (of) a lot of people who didn't think it would improve the TED, mostly people on DU and a few other forums I frequent who were arguing from a position of emotional outrage almost exclusively.

At any rate, I don't disagree with what you're saying.

My suspicion (and that's all it is since no one really knows, but I've read a few economists and some political people who have suggested it) of the "last minute rush" is that an internal squabble erupted within the White House about the direction this thing was taking, both in terms of what to do and how to sell it. They vacillated up to the point they were out of options locally, the crisis had gone global in ways that could not be hidden behind numbers, and Europe and the Chinese were screaming bloody murder with the Russians on board just ready to pounce. It left them on the horns of a true dilemma, bad options all, but some worse than others.

But again, that's speculative.

[Kaleko]

103. For what it's worth, your take on things makes perfect sense.

Please continue to post if you have the stomach to absorb all the emotional attacks.

Your seeing "no land in sight as yet" echoes Nouriel Roubini's and Krugman's statements. The necessity to initially shore up confidence in the face of a complete, global collapse of faith in the solvency of major banks, is not being questioned by anyone with insight into the facts.

[RoyGBiv]

104. It's worth quite a bit ...

It's a tad frustrating to put actual effort into studying what's going on and how various measures, both proposed and enacted, have or might affect the situation and then be dismissed as a "troll" or "shill" because I don't regurgitate the emotional impulses that I frankly understand very well and would sympathize with were they combined with some tangible discussion. I mean, really, if you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention. I'm trying to make sure I can pay the electricity bill next week, and I see billions of dollars floating around among people who hire teams of accountants to take care of that nonsense. I get it, and I want it to get better. I don't want to set the whole house on fire and beat it down with a baseball bat because it makes me feel better for a few seconds.

Girl gone mad and a few others on DU (mostly in the Economy group but also the denizens of the stock market watch thread on LBN) form a very small group of people who offer substantive, strong disagreement, and I truly appreciate it even as I continue to disagree. As I said elsewhere, disagreement is not the problem. Incoherent rage is. It makes me wonder how people like Krugman or Brad DeLong would fare here under a pseudonym. If they suddenly showed up with low post-counts, I don't believe it much of a stretch to suggest they'd be run out of town on a rail.

Like Krugman and a host of others who are finally seeing a potential path to Keynes, I fully admit I don't know how all this is going to play out with any precision, just that buried in this disaster is an opportunity if we're brave enough and strong enough to take it. We're in a recession and are going to stay there through, probably, at least 2010, which will make midterms very interesting. How deep it gets and how long it remains depends to a great extent on what we do now, how patient we let ourselves be, and whether we allow ourselves the freedom to make hard choices and do things that will be very unpopular in the short term.

Anyway, thanks for your input.

[Kaleko]

106. Agree on all points, and glad that I do -

:) Btw. I just finished reading this vivid description of how we actually got into this global financial mess. It's long but a great read:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom?print=true

The End of Wall Street's Boom -- Portfolio.com


by Michael Lewis Nov 11 2008

The era that defined Wall Street is finally, officially over. Michael Lewis, who chronicled its excess in Liar’s Poker, returns to his old haunt to figure out what went wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There's a thread about it on DU as well.

[dailykoff]

40. Mmm, waffles.

Not buying it, sorry.

[RoyGBiv]

43. Not buying what?

What kind of waffle?

Have I contradicted myself? Where? Show me.

[dailykoff]

46. Your ridiculous excuses.

You supported the heist and now you're pretending it wasn't a heist. Hope that's clear enough for you.

[RoyGBiv]

48. When you have something to add ...

... something of substance, that is, get back to me.

[Zhade]

109. So, you can't admit you were wrong?

NT!

[RoyGBiv]

119. When I am ...

I'll admit it.

[Marrah_G]

135. He didn't even read your posts

It's not worth your time arguing.

Please keep posting those. I enjoy your well thought out posts.

[RoyGBiv]

138. I know ...

I've only encountered a dozen or so who actually respond to what I say, as opposed to what they assume I am saying behind the words I write that don't say what their assumptions say I'm saying. Get what I'm saying?

And I would like to note that all I'm doing here is distilling down a rough outline of the ideas expressed by economists I respect augmented by a knowledge of history and how these events tend to go, what makes them stabilize, and what makes them worse. To put it another way, this is just a research report. :)

Krugman, Brad DeLong, Jamie Galbraith, Yves Smith, Nouriel Roubini, et al ... These are economists who have not been poisoned by Friedman's school that got us into this mess, and they do not always agree. This is why we have economic teams, not an economic Grand Poobah of all that is Money. Opinions differ.

Most of these people have blogs or columns. It's not like I'm pulling all this out of thin air.

[dailykoff]

153. Talking points are still talking points

even when served on a bed of fresh baloney. I've read your windy responses and haven't found anything particularly original or remarkable about them, sorry.

[RoyGBiv]

154. I can do this all day ...

I haven't read anything you've written on this particular subject that had an ounce of substance at all.

It's interesting, though, to see the tiny admission you make here and there. For instance, here you claim to have read all my "windy" responses (I've had a lot of experience with this, btw ... when opponents on an issue have nothing to say, they generally devolve into saying I type too much), yet you still seem unable to point me to an example of your first charge of my waffling.

[apocalypsehow]

49. You're not going to get so much as a speck of a coherent answer from those types - they're too busy

insisting that, although they flacked for the Wall Street handout at the time, something has now changed and now "that's different." :eyes:

Oh, and hurl a little personal invective while they're at it. That's about all they've got.

[dailykoff]

38. Thus has it ever been, thus will it be the next 4 years.

Big Business, Wall Street, their media megaphones, and their DC puppets have been puking all over us for eight plus years, and they've had popular "support" every evil step of the way, including Social Security reform, which had plenty of "supporters" here and all over the liberal media if you'll recall. It's a miracle they didn't bag that one.

[apocalypsehow]

47. Yep - and with a fair number of known trolls right here on DU flacking for it.

They're still at it, though a bit more subdued these days.

Excellent post. :thumbsup:

[RoyGBiv]

50. Am I troll?

[fascisthunter]

51. Why the Hell Would You Even Ask THat?

oh nevermind.... that person is on ignore.

[RoyGBiv]

52. And I quote ...

"Yep - and with a fair number of known trolls right here on DU flacking for it.
"They're still at it, though a bit more subdued these days."

This has been going on since the beginning. A certain contingent of people on DU have been dismissing *anyone* who disagrees with them on the need for or implementation of the bailout as a "troll" or "paid shill" of Wall Street, and I'm frankly sick of it. But, they're subtle ... not responding to people directly, rather posting in the same threads as those people as though "talking behind their back."

So, I'm asking, directly, what this individual thinks. Are my comments on the matter enough to label me a troll?

[fascisthunter]

54. not necessarily

I disagree with them but I won't call you a troll.

[RoyGBiv]

58. Disagreement I can handle ...

The personal invective is nauseating.

To say the least.

[depakid]

59. You may have noted that some of the most vocal are also anti-vaccine crusaders

and will also call posters who support science over their conspiracy theories "hacks" and "shills" for the pharmaceutical industry.

[fascisthunter]

63. Conspiracy theories huh? You Have Never Proven That One...

since I have been a member, anyway. Until you do, you may want to edit your post.

I did see you make this very claim in another thread regarding Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He I can trust... You???? Not so much.

[depakid]

68. Most conspiratorially inclined aren't amenable to reason

so it wouldn't matter how much evidence one adduced. Indeed, as was noted about certain types of people in a recent scientific study, the more credible information evidence one presents- the harder they cling to their irrational beliefs.

The process is described here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html

[apocalypsehow]

71. Uh, I'm not anti-vaccine and the implication that I am is absurd. But hey, genius, the BAILOUT is

the object of this OP, not vaccines. The bailout was a sham, period. Got an opinion about that? Or do you want to keep burbling about something else in a vain attempt to change the subject?

[depakid]

77. It's also impressive how ethnocentric some posters are

As if America is the center of the universe- and no one and othing else matters

Other industrialized nations have taken very similar actions to aid banks anbd financial institutions in order to unfreeze the GLOBAL credit markets.

I guess they're all corrupt and engaged in shams... Gordon Brown and Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling- PM Kevin Rudd and Treasury Minister Wayne Swan, the British and European Central Banks- the Australian Reserve Bank.

The whole lot of them- because they disagree with you on the issue.

[apocalypsehow]

80. So, not going to answer the question, huh? Just change the subject again.

Let me help you here, Einstein: This. OP. Is. About. The. Bailout. In. The. United. States. Of. America.

That is why the commentary is focused in that direction, not because of some absurd sense of "ethnocentrism." :eyes:

[depakid]

86. You're not going to change your mind one way or another

Doesn't matter that the GLOBAL credit markets- the object of the US and other countries' rescue plans, have been improving- and that we've (mostly) managed to avoid a complete collapse.

Some people are going holler and moan based on their narrow ideologies- without regard to facts.

[apocalypsehow]

87. So, still not going to address the OP: gotcha. Shabby dodge and all, but your concession is noted.

[depakid]

90. What have I conceded?

Look at the credit markets- there are indications there that the US and other similar rescue plans have been working.

That fact seems to bother you.

It's ALWAYS been said by the experts both here and abroad that it's going to take time to get back to "normal" conditions- and that a recession was unavoidable.

One suspects though that if your company couldn't fill orders or make payroll due to short term cash flow issues, you (and many others) would have been singing quite a different tune.

[apocalypsehow]

93. You refused to answer the question put to you, then admitted that you just didn't want to.

Which really meant that you couldn't.

Look at the credit markets- there are indications there that the US and other similar rescue plans have been working

False - nearly every analyst has admitted the exact opposite, that the handout has failed.

One suspects though that if your company couldn't fill orders or make payroll due to short term cash flow issues

False - this is not about me or my "company" or filling orders or any of the rest of that bullshit. This is about taking 700 billion dollars of the taxpayer's money and handing it over to Wall Street multi-millionaires. It's not one speck about rescuing anything but a bunch of rich people who gambled badly and failed.

[depakid]

98. What wierd counterfactuals- suffice it to say they off the mark (to say the least)

First of all, neither experts and the data have indicated the opposite:

Nov. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The cost of borrowing euros in London for three months fell to the lowest level since before the credit squeeze began, and dollar rates slid, as central banks sought to counter a collapse in lending that's battering the global economy.

The London interbank offered rate, or Libor, for euros fell 5 basis points to 4.27 percent today, the lowest level since Aug. 1, 2007, British Bankers' Association data showed.

Interbank rates fell from last month's peaks as central banks provided unlimited dollar funding and governments offered bailouts and guarantees to financial institutions. Credit markets, which began seizing up after the BNP Paribas decision, froze after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapsed on Sept. 15, shattering lenders' confidence they would be repaid.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=afpuyzX33HrA&refer=india

As to your second point, it's pretty clear that you don't know how businesses operate- or why they need access to short term credit (or longer term financing to say, expand into profitable areas and ventures).

Rather, the comments seem to reflect a blind adherence to ideology- one that would burn everyone's houses down, just to roast a few fat cats inside some buildings. As a matter of process it's very similar to the types of things one expects to hear from ideologues on the other side of th aisle

[apocalypsehow]

96. More falsehood than a person can keep track of: we were NEVER told it was going to "take time" for

anything: we were told that unless we handed over 700 billion dollars to Wall Street multi-millionaires immediately (if not sooner), the whole world was going to collapse, the sun would never again rise, and the entire country would be standing in bread lines by the end of the year.

Now that the handout plan to Wall Street multi-millionaires has quite obviously failed, it's flackers are running around screaming about Australia and every other country on the globe instead of talking about its manifest failure here, and when they're not busy with that they're falsely claiming that the handout was the best thing since the Marshall Plan.

Someone needs to buy a clue - fast.

[depakid]

99. I don't know who you were listening to

Yes prompt and hopefully coordinated action HAD TO BE TAKEN so that things wouldn't spiral out of control. ALL of the nations around the world AGREED that was the case (because it was).

But NO ONE stated that there would be a quick fix- or that the world would be able to forestall a recession- or that LOL these actions would be some sort of Marshll Plan.

Quite frankly, it's bizarre that you think so....

[Zhade]

110. So you still won't admit how wrong you were.

NT!

[RoyGBiv]

85. This is a very important point ...

When anything like this comes up, the US is suddenly the center of the known universe, and the economies of the entire world are cooperating with Bush so that him and his "base" can make out like bandits.

Makes my head spin, it does.

[apocalypsehow]

88. It's also a false one: point to one post in this thread that has made such a connection.

It is nothing more than another dodge to get away from talking about all the moronic support for the failed bailout, and how that support was based on idiotic assumptions and mind-numbingly stupid economic evaluations; it is more excuse-making and name-calling, in lieu of saying the honest thing, which is "we were wrong."

Just not very good at this sort of thing, are yah? Please try again.

[RoyGBiv]

95. Here's a suggestion ...

You stop calling me a moron and an idiot, and I'll refrain from the same.

As to your question, each and every individual that refers to the crisis as a "lie" or "manufactured" for the benefit of Bush and his cronies so they could profit or the support for some sort of bailout plan, whether we agreed with all the details or not, that ignores the fact that basically the entire European continent and much of Asia have done similar things is exhibiting a mentality that places the United States at the center of the world guiding each and every event, with no one outside the States having acted in their own interests or the interests of others.

If anything the US is lagging behind much of the rest of the world, in part because our populace, regardless of individual political ideology, seems hell bent on shouting down anything anyone does or tries to do. To put it another way, I am far less concerned with what the US has done than what it hasn't done, using what more sober, rational leaders of certain other parts of the world have done as a guide. And, they have gone far beyond what we've done so far.

My hope is that the incoming Obama administration is paying attention and doesn't use a public opinion poll to guide his policy in things about which the public as a whole is woefully ill-informed.

[depakid]

89. The British and the Aussies in particular have shown good judgment and leadership

Kevin Rudd has made many of the same types of moves- some even before America has- the most recent of these is aid to the Australian automobile industry.

That said, we can't replace the Bush administration fast enough- because only Obama's administrative agencies and a large Dem majority in congress are going to be able to get comprehensive and meaningful reform through. Meanwhile, we just have to hold on and try ro keep the situation from getting worse.

Which it most assuredly would if the credit markets had remained completely frozen up.

We could all have been Iceland's.

[apocalypsehow]

91. False. The Australians are scrambling to slash interest rates and their RBA is in a full fledged

panic about inflation; growth projections are down.

The British are tying their hopes to a Euro that remains hyper-competitive against the dollar, and are naturally delighted that 700 billion dollars of American taxpayer money is being used here, in hopes that a stabilized American credit market will prevent a world wide economic crises from becoming a depression.

None of which is, or should be, the problem of the American taxpayer.

[RoyGBiv]

97. "None of which is, or should be, the problem of the American taxpayer."

This already is a global crisis. We are all tied together.

That's what many people are simply not getting and the reason some of us are pointing to some others and suggesting their ethnocentrism is showing.

[mhatrw]

72. Exactly. And this conveniently relieves you of conveying any reason for

your support of this incredible ripoff.

[fascisthunter]

74. I noticed that too

very interesting indeed.

[fascisthunter]

73. all you do is try to insult people... you don't prove shit either way

why is that, depakid?

[depakid]

79. The science of the last 200+ years says it all- and you either accept it, or you don't

Normally one chuckles at quackery, but in this case, it goes beyond credility- and actually harms people (usually children) and presents a danger to the public health.

[apocalypsehow]

81. Do you have a comment about the subject of the OP? Or are you going to keep babbling about something

else? :shrug:

[fascisthunter]

82. ...and have yet to prove a damn thing. More insults... not Impressed

:boring:

[Zhade]

111. Your empty assertions and appeals to authority are not evidence to support your (flawed) argument.

NT!

[RoyGBiv]

65. Yes, I have noticed that ...

It would be amusing if it were so serious.

[mhatrw]

70. What is amusing is anyone who supports handing $3.5+ trillion without any reform

to the same crooks who got us into this mess.

[RoyGBiv]

76. Do you know anyone who supports that?

Handing out 3.5 billion <sic> without reform?

[mhatrw]

114. You. We already handed out $3.5 trillion without reform.

And, yes, it's <sic>!

[RoyGBiv]

118. You won't mind ...

You won't mind, of course, pointing me to where I said that I supported handing out "3.5 billion" (or any amount) without reform.

Be sure to count the number of times I stated plainly that re-regulation, etc. was a necessary part of any longterm plan.

I'll wait here.

[mhatrw]

69. You may notice that many of the same folks who defend Big Pharma

are defending the Big Plunder.

[depakid]

92. Exactly my point- in the conspiratorial world, it's always assumed that there's a dark villian

behind every policy. Support science- and you're a shill for Pharma.

Support economists like Krugman and Galbraith (who supported these actions) and you're a shill for Bush, the banks and or the "fatcats."

It's no coincidence that many the loudest opponents of the rescue are the anti-vaccination crusaders. Almost every single one of those crusaders on DU has lined up on the same side of this issue.

[mhatrw]

94. Krugman and Galbraith supported this travesty?

Back this up with primary evidence.

[RoyGBiv]

136. Ask and ye shall receive ...

Actually, I'll give you a two-fer, with Jamie saying what I and most of the supporters of the bill here said, and Krugman highlighting remarks under the title "People I Agree With"

"Jamie Galbraith, pre-House-debacle, offers a jaundiced pro-Dodd-Frank argument essentially the same as mine:

"'In short, as I said at the beginning, the bill is a vast improvement over the original Treasury proposal. Given the choice between approving or defeating the bill as it stands, I would urge supporting the bill. I do so without illusions. There need be no pretense that it will solve our underlying financial and economic problems. It will not. The purpose, in my view, is to get the financial system and the economy through the year, and into the hands of the next administration. That is a limited purpose, but a legitimate purpose. And it may be the most that can be accomplished for the time being.'"

Krugman's Blog

[apocalypsehow]

41. They're too busy running around playing semantics games, insisting it be called a "rescue" instead

of what it really was and still is: a reckless, irresponsible subsidy check - a handout - written to Wall Street millionaires so they won't have to go without their enormous Christmas bonuses this year.

Remember how we were assured that if the Wall Street handout check was cut, the stock market would rocket upward forever, the unemployment rate would drop into negative integers, and the economy would boom like the 1920's and 1990's and the Gilded Age all rolled into one? I do - and boy where they ever loud and insistent.

Well, guess what.... :eyes:

And I note that most of those pitching that silliness are nowhere to be found on this thread this evening. Curious, that. :shrug:

[Atman]

44. I didn't then. And I don't now.

And being a constituent of CT Congressman Joe Courtney, I'm proud that my representative actually voted NO, the ONLY Connecticut legislator to vote no.

It should be painfully clear by now that we've been HOSED. This wasn't a "bail out" or a "rescue." It was an outright THEFT, a final draining of the United States Treasury before the thugs left office.

BushCo claimed the Clinton's stole keyboard W's and silverware on his way out. Bush stole the whole fucking treasury.

.

[TheKentuckian]

61. I supported it and in principle still do. That was accounting for the serious

threat of it being a stick up style scam.

My assessment was that the credit threat was real and if it wasn't the ruling crime syndicate would make it real.
I have little doubt that if we didn't go along that the consequences threatened would be real and fairly immediate.

I think its odd that people run around screaming about something being a con-game when the real world effects are the same either way.

[RoyGBiv]

75. Another way to look at this ...

Unless you run by the theory that we're all suffering a mass hallucination, the crisis is real.

Unless you run by the theory that some organization like the Bilderberg Group manufactured it out of the air (and I have seen that, though it was a religious group, the name of which I can't remember, that was blamed ... shades of Elders of Zion actually), the "ruling crime syndicate" didn't create it purposefully to the degree it has gone.

Now, be certain, the Bush administration had a very large hand in creating the crisis as did several people in positions of power throughout the world, but they were playing with a economic nuclear reactor and trying to see how far out they could pull the control rods without causing a meltdown and went too far. They didn't mean for it to get this far, but they are idiots, and it did ... Comparing the economic situation to a China Syndrome is appropriate on some truly terrifying levels.

And then, as you say, the consequences became real for all of us, no matter the cause, and whether we like it or don't, we must face it and deal with it and do things that none of us particularly like having to do ... unless you subscribe to the theory that we should just let it burn, to use a semi-popular phrase from not too long ago, which I don't.

[McCamy Taylor]

62. Never supported it, but Obama had to. The whole f***ing MSM said the economic sky was falling

and that only this would save the economy, and that voting Yes on this bailout was the litmus test of whether or not the candidates had the passed the 3am Economic Commander in Chief Challenge.

Pretty slick way for JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs to get their free hundreds of billions, right? If either candidate had voted "no" the press would have declared that candidate DOA.

Just call it Operation Iraq War II, More Bush Lies. All you people who blamed Hillary for voting "yes" on the Iraq resolution should feel ashamed of yourselves. Obama got manipulated in exactly the same way. It is because Congress did not have the balls to impeach Bush when they had the chance.

[dailykoff]

67. They both caved, and both votes were shameful.

Did they have to? That's arguable, but I seriously doubt whether Obama taking a principled stand against the pukes bailout would have lost him the election, or even significant support, in the current environment. Hell he WON on the economy and the bailout didn't even get the support of the House it's first time out! Yes he would have taken some flack, and yes it would have taken some courage, and so far he's shown little enough of that.

[TheKentuckian]

78. If it makes you feel morally and intellectually superior to pretend

that saying no to the bailout would come without ballbreaking consequences, then go ahead but you'd be wrong.

[apocalypsehow]

83. Why stop at 700 billion? Why not borrow 7 trillion dollars and hand it over to Wall Street?

Why do the thing half-assed? ( :eyes: )

The bottom line is the handout has failed, and now all its supporters can do is pout and scream in impotent rage at those of us who didn't buy into the phony scam.

[reflection]

100. Not my intent

However, the rush to blindy support the bailout was wrong, in my opinion. Even now it is obvious that they are still not quite sure what to do with the money, and that there will be real problems with oversight.

I think those who said "slow down, let's put this together and get it right" were marginalized. And I think anyone who voted for it with the obvious unrelated excesses in it was doing a great harm and disservice.

Although I don't feel as if I am 'intellectually and morally superior', (probably the opposite) I do feel like the people like me who opposed the bailout were right. This is shaping up to be an unparalleled theft.

[Marrah_G]

124. I think it was the tone of your OP

To me it is a snarky, taunting tone. I'm hoping you did not mean it that way.

[reflection]

128. Eh, you're probably right.

There was something in my head trying to get out - not schadenfreude, because there's no satisfaction in any of this, and definitely not as simplistic as 'I-told-you-so'.

I do think that we're only going to get so many mulligans before we collapse as a country. If we've learned *anything* from the last eight years, it's that when this administration yells "Quick! Do this!" it's a perfect time to slow down and hammer our all the details before any action is taken.

(I'm not wording this correctly, I put in a 14-hr shift yesterday, and then when I got home everyone was crying because a dog got hold of one of our pet cats and tore it to shreds. Didn't eat dinner until 10p and didn't get to bed 'til midnight. I'm very tired. Apologies for the rambling. Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.)

[Marrah_G]

132. Oh no! sorry about your kitty!

[reflection]

134. Thanks. The kids are understandably distraught.

They are just now beginning to understand that death = not coming back. Might as well learn it with a pet first.

[Zhade]

112. Considering we've been proven right not to trust this administration... you're wrong.

NT!

[KathieG]

84. I was dubious about the whole thing...still am. I'm no economist, so...

I have a hard time wrapping my tiny brain around it.

[Uzybone]

102. I did. I regret supporting it

not because it wasn't necessary, but because it looks like even with the language the Dems forced in the bill to make Paulson accountable, that Paulson is blatantly looting the US treasury.

[Zhade]

107. "Thank God It Passed!"

The rallying cry of the woefully misinformed who supported it.

[cliffordu]

113. Not me. Sorry, I didn't get bailed out the last time I gambled away my rent,

I see no reason to enable them for doing the same.

If the creeps that ran the economy into the ground volunteered to go to prison to save their companies I would feel differently, as it is they get rewarded for theft.

[elkston]

115. It is still too soon to tell whether the bailout "worked" or not.

It took years of greed and mismanagement for the economy to dive in the pits like it is now.

So likewise, the effects of the bailout will not be seen immediately. And as you know, the performance of the stock market is NOT a direct indicator of the "rescue package" outcome.

Institutions had trouble securing credit -- this was KNOWN. Something exceptional had to be done. Our hands were tied.

On the other hand, I am AGAINST the auto industry bailout. We have to put our foot down sometime and a company that stubbornly clings to the past should be allowed to fail.

[MilesColtrane]

140. Those eager to cry "I told you so" will argue from any outcome.

The economy continues to worsen, therefore the EESA didn't work it was all a scam.

If employment figures stabilized and the stock market started to recover, the EESA was unnecessary, making it an unwarranted give away, a scam.

The truth is that it has done what it was intended to do. It was designed to temporarily keep the credit market from freezing, and that is all it has done...bought us a month and a half.

[shadowknows69]

116. I said we should wait for a new administration

I knew the urgency of it was suspect.

[reflection]

127. Man, you said it.

I felt as if I were in the leadup to the Iraq war again. "ZOMG!!!1 WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!!!!!!!1"

[natrat]

117. fuck you barney frank you diseased street walking whore

edit to be crystal clear-this guy handed the keys of our treasury to full on crooks-this man should be put in jail

[reflection]

120. I wish

you would quit beating around the bush and tell us what you really think.

;)

[Marrah_G]

121. I did- I don't support Paulson's recent bait and switch regarding it.

I am very disappointed with the way it is now being handled.

[reflection]

130. Respectfully, I ask though...

did you expect anything different? When has this administration ever done the right thing? That was the deal-breaker for me. I wouldn't trust these guys with a used piece of toilet paper, much less a blank check.

[Marrah_G]

131. I did expect something different

With the new administration coming in so soon and the problems being so dire, I did, perhaps niavely, think they were going to stick to their word and work to get things stabilized.

[QC]

122. The most relentless (and tediously self-important) of the bailout apologists

still hasn't checked in.

I'm sure it's just an oversight.

[LanternWaste]

129. I was (and still am) confident enough in my...

I was (and still am) confident enough in my ignorance of macro-economics to withhold judgmental either way. Confident enough to say without reservation, that I am forced to put my faith into those few who hold both the precise and relevant understanding of the matter (and its consequences) and my trust.

Unlike most on this thread, I hold neither a degree in economics, nor a complete, full and absolute understanding of this most esoteric of disciplines...

[HamdenRice]

133. I supported the bailout, and support Paulson's "bait and switch" with conditions

I don't think Paulson is the guy to do it, but given what's in the financial press today explaining what's behind his cryptic utterances, what he's proposing may be necessary.

I'll have a long analytic post up a little later explaining what Paulson was alluding to.

[RoyGBiv]

137. I look forward to that ...

Opinion on Paulson's latest is all over the board it seems, the only consensus I can find being that his original proposal before Congress got their hands on it was clearly a bad idea. Had he been given the $700bn up front with no restrictions, it likely would be gone by now, all of it planted in places where it's not going to do any good. There would have been no equity stake at all, for example.

Anyway ... I agree that Paulson is not the guy to do this. Is it January yet?

And by god they need a public relations consultant. The way Treasury and the Fed communicates is abysmal.

I'm interested in the Waxman hearings.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

139. Yes, and tentatively yes.

I'm not enough of an economist to be confident it's a good thing, but the balance of informed opinion seems to be nearly as heavily in favour of it as the balance of uninformed opinion is against it.

And the fact that the economy is teetering rather than collapsing outright as looked probably before the bailout was passed makes me suspect it was the right thing to do, although only time will tell.

[Greyhound]

141. I especially like the cry of "It was necessary to unfreeze the credit market", as if there is some

unthinking mechanism beyond human control that had to be appeased in order to continue it's beneficence.

The fact was, and still is, that there are a very small number of people that control this perverted process. People that can be told to do what to do in order to continue the process, but those people are very rich and very powerful and it is so much easier to just pay the ransom, after all it's not like it makes any difference in their lives, they are recession and outsource proof.
:puke:
:kick: & R

[HamdenRice]

143. Wrong: "there are a very small number of people that control this perverted process"

This is where you went off the rails. Sorry, but this shows you fundamentally don't understand markets.

The whole terrifying idea of markets is that it is a place where literally millions of people interact anonymously bidding over the price of stuff.

The "freezing of the credit markets" had a lot to do with millions and millions of people liquidating their 401Ks or withdrawing money from money market accounts, which in turn, dictated what a few thousand money managers could and could not do each morning when the markets opened.

If you can grasp this idea, you will move from having an unsophisticated, conspiratorial notion of what happened to having a better grasp of the truth.

[Greyhound]

146. This just shows that you have accepted the web of lies that we have been fed

for centuries. Lies which the founders of this nation recognized and warned against. Behind each transaction there is a human mind that makes the decision. When the majority of decisions are against the structure, a 'no confidence' vote if you will, than the system must fail, to be replaced by one in which there is more confidence.

To deny that those decisions can be directed from the source of all wealth, demonstrates that you make your living from within that corrupt system.

"There are seven sins in the world: Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience, Knowledge without character, Commerce without morality, Science without humanity, Worship without sacrifice and politics without principle." - Mahatma Gandhi

[MilesColtrane]

142. Interestingly, Paul Krugman recommended buying shares in the banks back in September...

...instead of buying the toxic securities, like the original plan called for.

Now that Paulson has agreed that this makes more sense, everyone's pissed that it's a "bait and switch".

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/opinion/22krugman.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

The Paulson plan calls for the federal government to buy up $700 billion worth of troubled assets, mainly mortgage-backed securities. How does this resolve the crisis?

Well, it might — might — break the vicious circle of deleveraging, step 4 in my capsule description. Even that isn’t clear: the prices of many assets, not just those the Treasury proposes to buy, are under pressure. And even if the vicious circle is limited, the financial system will still be crippled by inadequate capital.

Or rather, it will be crippled by inadequate capital unless the federal government hugely overpays for the assets it buys, giving financial firms — and their stockholders and executives — a giant windfall at taxpayer expense. Did I mention that I’m not happy with this plan?

The logic of the crisis seems to call for an intervention, not at step 4, but at step 2: the financial system needs more capital. And if the government is going to provide capital to financial firms, it should get what people who provide capital are entitled to — a share in ownership, so that all the gains if the rescue plan works don’t go to the people who made the mess in the first place.

That’s what happened in the savings and loan crisis: the feds took over ownership of the bad banks, not just their bad assets. It’s also what happened with Fannie and Freddie. (And by the way, that rescue has done what it was supposed to. Mortgage interest rates have come down sharply since the federal takeover.)

[RoyGBiv]

145. Greg Mankiw did too ...

What Paulson is doing now is similar to what many critics suggest be done in the first place. In fact one of the major complaints about it originally was the purchasing of toxic assets that could not be legitimately valued.

Well, there ya go.

Still a lot of variables with this, and I've barely begun to scratch beneath the surface of *why* Paulson has changed his approach ... he needs better communications skills. Actually, he needs a new job.

But I digress ... Here's what Mankiw said in October. He basically called it.

It could work as follows. Whenever any financial institution attracts new private capital in an arms-length transaction, it can access an equal amount of public capital. The taxpayer would get the same terms as the private investor. The only difference is that government’s shares would be nonvoting until the government sold the shares at a later date.

This plan would solve the three problems. The private sector rather than the government would weed out the zombie firms. The private sector rather than the government would set the price. And the private sector rather than the government would exercise corporate control.

Why would an undercapitalized financial firm take advantage of this offer? Because it would need to raise only half as much capital from private sources, that financing should be easier to come by. With Warren Buffetts in scarce supply, the government can in effect replicate them, by pigging backing on what they do.

I believe that Treasury has the discretion to use some of the $700 billion recently approved by Congress to make these equity injections. I would recommend that the Treasury announce an upper limit, say, $300 billion, allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. The limit would encourage financial institutions to act quickly to get in before the door closed. Given how fast matters are deteriorating, the sooner capital gets back into the financial system, the better.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-to-recapitalize-financial-system.html

[sandnsea]

144. Still support it

If we've avoided a total Depression because of even the appearance of intervention, then that was all it was supposed to do to begin with. I expect raising FDIC to $250,000 helped as much as anything though.

[shanti]

148. just answer me this:

what difference does it make if people supported it or not?? we the people certainly didn't have a say-so in the outcome! :shrug:

or is your point just to pound on people?

[reflection]

150. We had a say-so insamuch as it pertains

to our elected representatives. And my wife and I, although politically worlds apart, tag-teamed Bob Corker's phone all day until the lady at the desk all but strangled us through the phone. Now granted, these jerks are going to vote the way they want, but at least we can let them know what we think.

So that's the difference. I wasn't pounding on anyone.