I have some questions about the "economic crisis" that I haven't seen anyone ask.

[scarletwoman]

One of the refrains that I've been hearing repeatedly is that if the credit markets aren't rescued, soon small businesses will fail because they won't be able to get loans. And college students won't be able to get student loans. And ordinary people won't be able to get mortgages to buy homes, won't be able to get car loans, etc.

And I keep wondering -- why not put some of that $700 billion into the SBA and put together a program that would assure that small businesses can borrow what they need?

Why not put some of that $700 billion into the Sallie Mae student loan program that would guarantee that students could get the college money they need?

Why not put some of that $700 billion into the FHA so people could continue to get mortgages?

Why not use some of that $700 billion as a capital infusion for community banks and credit unions -- who are NOT insolvent and who were NOT writing subprime mortgages and whose loans were backed by actual savings deposits -- so they can confidently grant car loans, and loans for other big ticket purchases, and home improvement, and such?

Why does help for Main Street HAVE to go through Wall Street? Why wouldn't the economy just simply hum along nicely if the "bailout" happened from the bottom up, instead of somehow theoretically trickling down from saving the necks of the reckless Wall Street conmen?

I really hope someone will explain why, because it seems to me that if Paulson, et al were REALLY concerned about the economic repercussions of the credit freeze for Main Street, they could simply put the money directly into the institutions that directly benefit Main Street.

sw

[wtmusic]

1. An excellent, bottom-up approach

which lays waste to their concern about "Main St.". All talk.

[wtmusic]

2. delete

[barbtries]

3. i'm with you

i don't know why it has to be this way, i don't believe that it has to be this way.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. Obviously you, and a few others here at DU , are alot smarter than those in DC.

These are excellent ideas, and I cannot see one reason not to implement them...except that the corporate based politicians want to make sure that their friends get bailed out....

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Because that is what you and I have to advocate in FUTURE bills

with a DIFFERENT congress

See New Deal Legislation

See scaffold

The revolution IS happening and the opportunity will be wasted

By the way, you realize this "crisis" is global... no you don't

:banghead:

[BrklynLiberal]

7. ...they want us to bail them out too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x203700

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4143038

HYPE AND FEAR IN THE NEWS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x389592

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. So I am imagining that Massachusetts is not getting credit?

States didn't during the great depression either

Am I also imagining the tightening credit across the economy?

PHEW! Thanks....

[moodforaday]

39. Have you considered

that it may be a form of blackmail? Especially suspicious if it affects only one state?

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. It is global... not only in the US

so this is a HELL of a tin foil moment

And we will see this expand to other states...

In fact this will not make things better instantaneously... just might make things less bad

[ProfessorGAC]

123. Explore The Concept Of "Credit Strike"

The big caps are gunshy right now, and to get gov't to act quickly (rashly?) they are tightening credit to create a squeeze where none need exist.

Come on. You're smarter than that.
The Professor

[scarletwoman]

11. The crisis is global for the globalists & the financial elites. Everyone else has already BEEN

in crisis thanks to the global financial elite and the multi-national corporations.

The best thing that could happen for the ordinary people of the world would be for the plutocrats to crash and burn. Nations need economic sovereignty if their People are to prosper, as opposed to the plutocrats.

Bang your head all you want.

sw

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. This already put the kibbush to globalization

and american dominance, but that is another story... one that European presses are covering... and I guess China will step into the vaccuum

Reality is that this will hit the POOR hard... in ways that you cannot even comprehend... so keep screaming let it burn.

I can... seen those conditions. And worked with those people and chiefly ALONG SIDE those people.

So yes, I will do this

:banghead:

[scarletwoman]

21. The poor all over the world have been "hit hard" for decades, due to the Washington Consensus --

make that "Washington Con" for short.

Sorry, I fail to see the logic of an argument which basically asserts that propping up a system that already fucks people over will save these people from being fucked over.

sw

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. lemme see, eat today... or starve

that is the hobsian choice if this collapses... and if this collapses it will mean that those people you are decrying are getting fucked right now, and they are... will now starve... is that preferable? And I am not kidding here, at all. As is many of those folks are this close to starvation already and are permanently hungry.

Is that better?

The system is changing under your feet... these are systemic changes, these are seismic changes


The revolution is here.

It is nice to scream philosophical platitudes... I hope you have a plan... they do...

This is not a drill

And I know you probably see me as the enemy... after all I see this plan as a way to buy the time WE NEED to move on to far more progressive legislation

I am almost possitive what I'd like in an ideal world is far to the left of most in the AMERICAN left... by the by

But I am the enemy... guilty as charged...

[scarletwoman]

42. You know what? You really haven't addressed why my suggestions wouldn't help Main Street more than

the Paulson bailout bill -- which was the whole point of my post.

The people pushing this bill are arguing that the BIG reason that it's necessary is because otherwise Main Street will end up suffer terribly. I'm suggesting that if they REALLY wanted to prevent suffering on Main Street, there's OTHER things they could be doing with the money Paulson is asking for.

It seems to me that you're holding the position that it has to be Paulson's way, OR ELSE. Sorry, I think that's fucked up.

sw

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Quite simple, it is the BANKS that are no loaning right now

that will not... they don't have any trust with each other, or money to loan

Your idea is not bad...

But it requires a federal system... and that needs to be pushed for guv'ment to do that... and INDEPENDENT system from the banks... and given HOW Murican capitalism works that will not happen if we do not push for this collectively. After all, banks will fight that tooth and nail since commercial paper is very profitable


The new deal happened because WE the people were on the streets. For god sakes vets of WW I were shot at by the army after they marched on DC, that is the level of commitment that is required... and that is what it took for the new deal to go fort.

As is, whatever is left of the paulson plan is a comma and a period...


And is this bill perfect? No... far from it, now that it has been larded up it is even worst. But in the CURRENT political reality in DC that is the best we could have gotten... not enough and not the first bill

So this is the time to start pressuring these folks to get what we want, realistically in the NEXT congress

[scarletwoman]

49. See, this is where I differ. Once something that is obviously fucked up gets passed, it doesn't get

changed. Inertia sets in. The Patriot Act gets renewed, the Iraq Occupation gets repeatedly refunded.

The bright line that SHOULD be there gets crossed and becomes invisible. The line is no longer there.

Our ONLY hope is in resisting the beginnings. Principiis obsta and Finem respice - "Resist the beginnings" and "consider the end." http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.html

sw

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. happy days are here again... not the way it was meant back then

welcome to the revolution

We are at that moment

I am a world class cynic

But I also understand how these little events are seismic and how the rules that you know and have known all your life are now mute

But how these things go depends on the level of pressure we put

As we speak there are those pressuring those in power for MORE friedman like solutions... and we know how well they work... after all st reagan was right... just ask some of my local pukes... so we need to put pressure on the other side and this may include singing our way to this ... even when bullets are flying and they just may.

Why I have made a promise, to email and pressure early and often and to become a pest

but this has to be en-masse and ahem constant and it has to make people uncomfortable

[JDPriestly]

6. Exactly.

This bill just puts a huge amount of money under the control of the Bush administration and the Secretary of the Treasury. It is abominable, just scandalous.

[depakid]

13. WRONG, There's as very extensive an oversight system in place

The bill includes an oversight board appointed by Congress; a GAO presence at Treasury to oversee the program and conduct audits to ensure strong internal controls; an independent Inspector General to monitor the Treasury Secretary's decisions; transparency -- requiring posting of transactions online -- to help jumpstart private sector demand; and meaningful judicial review of the Treasury Secretary's actions.

Not sure how much more oversight one could put in. Do you?

[lonestarnot]

18. Yes and all those fuckers are bushitler appointees last time I read the damn thing.

[depakid]

23. That's about a patently false and inane a post as I've read yet

Congress and the GAO are Bush appointees...:crazy:

[lonestarnot]

24. Around page 18 of the bill that was burned in the house you will see who the oversight committee

will be, check it again and tell me I'm wrong.

[depakid]

30. Here's the procedure on the current bill

REPORTING.

—The Comptroller General shall submit reports of findings under this section, regularly and no less frequently than once every 60
days, to the appropriate committees of Congress, and the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program established under this Act on the activities and performance of the TARP. The Comptroller may also submit special reports under this subsection as warranted by the findings of its oversight activities.

The Special Inspector General has to be approved by the Senate.

http://assets.sunlightfoundation.com/pdf/eesa_senate.pdf

[lonestarnot]

32. Is this the current Senate bill?

[depakid]

51. The relevant provisons seem to be intact about what we're discussing

since I last reviewed it.

It would be nice to have paper copies of these things.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. They are up to 450 now

I FINISHED readying the 130+ one this morning, guess what I will be dong now?

[depakid]

56. Hate to guess- have you seen the oversight provisions change?

lonestarnot was right about the new Comptroller General- we can't pay attention to every single thing, and we all have our prejudices, so when the GAO ruled against the Air Force (and the Bush Administration and McCain) on the tanker contract- despite political pressure to do otherwise, I didn't look back at that. He was indeed appointed by Bush.

My reckoning was- the office has a long appointments- with a long history of independence and there are a lot of career personnel at the GAO.

Part and parcel to all of this is a worry that we can't trust anyone to take care of business in a responsible manner.

Whether or not they sopeak or behave responsibly

And as we're seeing- that holds true for Democrats and Republicans alike.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Very true, but this is what a lot of folks are missing here

we ARE in revolutionary times

These events cause seismic changes

But we need to get far more involved than we have so far

Now does that mean I have to go print this and get some espresso?

NOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Though they added a lot of pork too... and I am still not sure they will get the votes on friday... the kind of pork added will probably loose them the so called centrist blue dogs... the question is how many

[depakid]

62. Here's a strange bedfellow observation

The tendency is for represenatives from the deep south and representatives from the NorthWest to oppose stabilizing the credit markets.

What do the two have in common?

That's fodder for thought and an interesting study.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. DEEP rural areas

that is what comes up immediately....

that said the deep south has had a deep distrust of the feds since oh howie long and the civil rights movement and the northwest.... has a bunch if right wing white supremacist in the back woods with the FBI coming to visit every so often

You are right, that is part of the seismic lines in the country.

[depakid]

68. Not so rural areas- even urban areas in the Northwest

Seem to share somthing in common with with the rural South.

[JDPriestly]

82. I'm in L.A.

It's mostly D.C. and the east coast that wants this. The people from the rest of the country that support this either don't know what is good for the or support it because they are following the leadership in the east and N.Y. and D.C. especially.

This Act is a corrupt lobbyist's definition of heaven.

[JDPriestly]

81. But these deals are going to go down really fast.

By the time you have GAO oversight, the money is gone. It's too late. You can't get it back. I don't see any criminal penalties written into the bill for abuses. Of course, I suppose the general laws against defrauding the government apply, but considering how much discretion the Secretary is given in the really dangerous areas -- granting contracts (allows for kick-backs and political favors that are hard to prove) and deciding how much to pay for specific properties and securities, it's loaded with invitations to corruption -- big time corruption. This will replace the Iraq War as the number one banquet for lobbyists. The provisions for helping ordinary homeowners are just afterthoughts. That is my cynical view. Sorry -- after 8 years of Bush, I do not trust the Bush administration.

[JDPriestly]

79. I think so. The next section went into the special alternative

energy tax relief. I did not review it. The alternative energy tax relief provisions were only in the Senate version of the bill as I understand it.

[JDPriestly]

78. The GAO role and the Inspector General and congressional

roles are only as effective as Congress's subpoena power.

This program opens up countless opportunities for kick-backs and special favors that will be appear to be perfectly harmless. Remember what happened in Iraq?

Congress should have set up an independent agency to manage this. It never should have handed this over to the Secretary without doing that. The heads of independent agencies cannot be fired at the whim of the president. The Secretary and all the people on the board directly responsible for the decisionmaking on this deal are employed at the pleasure of the president. The GAO, Inspector General, etc. are all oversight roles. All they get to do is read the reports (however truthful and complete or untruthful and incomplete) prepared by the Treasury and other members of the cabinet. This is a horrible plan.

[JDPriestly]

77. The GAO is not. Congress has had difficulty exercising

meaningful oversight with the Bush administration. The congressional oversight provision is worthless unless Congress can call any individual in the nation before it, bar none.

[JDPriestly]

76. Form an independent agency to oversee this.

[mike_c]

132. the "oversight" is absolutely toothless-- nothing but a sap to entice the herd....

eom

[TreasonousBastard]

36. And giving the money to the SBA wouldn't? n/t

[RainDog]

8. that's what quite of few of us are asking

because that way is a way to strengthen democracy, to foster equality, and to strengthen the middle class.

I am coming to the conclusion that a vote for the bail out is essentially a vote for fascism, even tho I do NOT think that is the intent for most everyone who supports this.

I DO think that is the intent for the corporations and Paulson and Bush, however.

I also think this is the October surprise, or, the attempted coup. Even with Obama in office, the fascists will control the pursestrings... and the purse... and the rest of us as well.

This makes me profoundly sad to see.

[sandnsea]

9. The banks distribute those loans

and they aren't going to qualify to get the money themselves because of the debt on their own balance sheets.

[scarletwoman]

15. You're missing my point about community banks and credit unions.

Their loans are based on the worth of their actual deposits -- NOT reckless speculations. I could go to my community credit union tomorrow and get a home improvement loan or a car loan, no sweat. They are NOT insolvent because they never joined the gambling orgy that that the Wall Street players did.

An extra infusion of cash out of the $700 billion would absolutely guarantee that they could continue to serve the needs of Main Street without interruption.

sw

[sandnsea]

22. When the big banks and stock market fail

There won't be any money left in the accounts of the people who bank with the little banks. Everything will crash. Your plan is great -- AFTER we fix the immediate credit/cash flow crisis.

[scarletwoman]

27. Which is precisely why I propose that part of the $700 go into capitalizing the community banks &

credit unions. My savings account in my credit union isn't going to disappear, no matter what happens on Wall Street. Nor will anyone else's deposits in their local banks and credit unions. And if part of the $700 billion goes into insuring everyone's accounts in their local banks and credit unions, then everyone's accounts will be perfectly safe -- because even if some people panic and pull their deposits out, the rest of us will still be covered.

The only thing that will threaten my account is the massive inflation and devaluation of the dollar that will almost certainly happen if the bailout as it is currently constructed goes through.

sw

[TreasonousBastard]

41. They may be, but they still can't do what...

money center banks do. There's trillions moved around every day, and even governments can't handle that kind of volume.

The banking end of all banks is based on actual deposits, which is why BoA could buy out more speculative ventures and why the investment banks are becoming real banks. Wachovia and WaMu went over a line most banks don't cross.

[JDPriestly]

84. scarletwoman, you are so right about community banks and credit unions

however I believe they have to borrow from big banks for liquidity. The big banks and investment houses by virtue of their size have leverage over the local and smaller institutions and it is the big banks' use of that leverage that closes the local, smaller institutions.

[scarletwoman]

116. I understand that, but no one has really answered my question -- why can't the bailout money go

directly to the small institutions instead of being filtered through the big banks?

As I understand it, the Federal Reserve has already opened up a whole new credit window for the investment banks. Why couldn't they do the same for the small institutions, so that the small institutions wouldn't have to be at the mercy at the big banks' liquidity?

sw

[JDPriestly]

138. Good point. This bail-out is about making the big corporations bigger still.

[Venceremos]

12. You asked

"Why wouldn't the economy just simply hum along nicely if the "bailout" happened from the bottom up, instead of somehow theoretically trickling down from saving the necks of the reckless Wall Street conmen?"

The answer, at least according to a cadre of economists I've heard the past two days, is that the bottom up approach would work better than the atrocious bailout bill. Unfortunately, the bottom up approach doesn't have any lobbyists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. It is needed, but you will not hear people lobbying for it

but in reality even the great depression had elements of both... though mostly trickle up.... but it also included people in the streets... not that I see that happening

[lonestarnot]

19. No lobbyists for us po folks.

That is the answer. We suck, so have to eat their shit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Here is a hint, WE ARE those lobbyist

I've said this before, time to take to streets is here

This is not a drill

That is how WE do lobbying

Oh never mind

I know that does not work since the MSM will not cover it... never mind the MEDIA of its day didn't cover us little people either

[lonestarnot]

31. Oh I see, and where is all of that lobbyist money coming from, do we have sponsors?

:rofl: I've been in the streets since 2000. :eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. You know how long it took labor to get their goals?

you know HOW LONG it took women to get the vote?

eight years is nothing

That said... that is where we need to be

Of course add a national strike or two...

But I will continue to hear the excuses

[lonestarnot]

38. Lemme know when you hear we're going out! I'll be there!

:hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. I've participated in the three failed national strikes so far

they were a dismal failure

[Virginia Dare]

121. It was grassroots constituent lobbying that sank the House bailout Bill..

it works sometimes, especially right before an election.

[LooseWilly]

16. Why not? Simple. Because Kucinich already suggested that... and by definition he's crazy.

And too many Democratic legislators are afraid of being labeled "liberal", or worse yet, "socialist"...

God forbid.

[lonestarnot]

20. By whose motherfucking definition pal?

[Grey]

25. smartest thing I've heard all week! n/t

[leftofthedial]

29. because if the bailout doesn't go through the hands of fat cats on its way down

to human beings, it isn't supply-side, trickle-down, which is all the repukes and corporate-owned congressional "democrats" are really after. they aren't trying to solve any problem beyond the fact that the most venal and amoral people on the planet told them they wanted a trillion more bucks or else.

[scarletwoman]

37. Well, yeah, we all kinda already knew that. I just wanted to point out what a crock it is

by offering, imho, some common sense alternatives.

Economic terrorism makes me feel really quite resentful. I don't respond well to being shaken down by conmen.

sw

[leftofthedial]

73. life in America must be hell for you.

it is for me.

[scarletwoman]

75. To be honest, I'm quite happy with my personal life. I live on 10 acres in a rural area surrounded

by forest. I see bald eagles at least once a week on my way to work, the yard around my tiny cabin is full of wildflowers and medicinal herbs, I hear wolves and coyotes singing by night, and cardinals and chickadees singing by day.

I love this land and always feel extremely grateful for the good fortune that allowed me to be born here.

My anger arises from the afflictions and oppressions I see visited on far too many of my fellow citizens.

sw

[leftofthedial]

83. I'm going crazy from the daily outrages

committed against my sense of justice.

[chimpymustgo]

117. The daily outrages...the complicity of all the ruling class, including Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton.

THEY ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR US.

Ah, change we can believe in. NOT!

[SammyWinstonJack]

124. "Ah, change we can believe in. NOT!"

:thumbsup:

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

34. That's the sort of bottom up solution we need

Contact your congresscritters ! I did so over the weekend with similar ideas.

[lostnotforgotten]

35. I THink You Raise Some Very Good, Sensisble Points

Why have we not heard your proposals?

Maybe because the problem to be solved is not what we are lead to believe it is.

[scarletwoman]

45. "Maybe because the problem to be solved is not what we are lead to believe it is." BINGO!

Thank you! :toast:

sw

[Hannah Bell]

86. yes, there are plenty of good solutions, if the goal is to stabilize markets,

protect the citizens, keep jobs, get rid of failed institutions, etc.

but that's not the goal.

depressing as hell when you get it.

[TreasonousBastard]

44. Simple answer-- because it does. Better answer...

every single penny that gets spent, saved, taxed, or anything but lost goes through banks at some point. Your local bank goes to money center banks every day to make sure it's got cash on hand to clear checks and pay its own bills.

Banks create money through what's known as the multiplier effect. If banks don't keep lending money and and attracting deposits, we go into deflation. Nobody knows what deflation would actually look like, but it's assumed to be very, very bad.

Maybe throwing 900 billion at banks isn't the best idea, but the key to getting things straightened out is getting the banks to go back to their normal business, and throwing money at them is one thought.

[scarletwoman]

48. You apparently missed the part where I suggested that part of the $700 billion go into capitalizing

the local banks so they can continue to conduct their normal business of lending.

Again, why does the money have to go through Wall Street? Why shouldn't it go directly to the community financial institutions?

sw

[TreasonousBastard]

55. It won't help local banks because...

they burn through vast amounts of cash back and forth-- money center banks are set up to deal with this, not the Fed or other government agencies.

It's not so much Wall Street, which has apparently ceased to exist in its former form, but the major banks that are central to everything we do. If GM opens an new plant, it doesn't go to a local bank, it goes to a banking consortium which extends a few billion. If the major banks are feeling a liquidity lump in their throats, the consortium comes up with squat. When your local bank makes a car loan or mortgage, and an unusually large pile of depositors checks happen to clear the same day, it goes to a major bank for a few bucks till deposits catch up.

Small business payrolls may be feeling the bite-- there's usually a separate payroll account set up, and it often comes with a line of credit so paychecks won't bounce if the employer doesn't make a deposit on time for some reason. If that credit line dries up, or the price gets too high, paycecks could bounce.

(I once worked for a small company that wouldn't pay for the credit line, so only the first five people to get to the bank could cash their checks some weeks. I found out about this when I deposited the paycheck and it bounced, taking a bunch of my checks with it)

[scarletwoman]

61. Again, did you miss the part where I proposed that part of the $700 billion go to making extra

capital available to small businesses?

If GM opens an new plant, it doesn't go to a local bank, it goes to a banking consortium which extends a few billion.

So? There are already other bills underway to bailout GM. I'm basically okay with bailing out the American auto industry -- because those jobs are important.

My objection is that there's a lot of good that $700 billion could do that would NOT involve giving it ALL to Wall Street.

sw

[TreasonousBastard]

63. Well, we're not giving it to Wall Street, we're giving it...

to banks, which, once again, are the most effective agents for distributing money.

During the Penn Central bankruptcy, which was then the worst thing ever to have happened since the Depression, the Fed kept the discount window open 24 hours a day to guarantee bank liquidity. Penn Central's bonds were worth nothing after the bankruptcy, but were collateral for incredible amounts of loans (sound familiar?) and the Fed was there to constantly lend money to the banks to cover the asset shortfall.

It worked then, and it could work now. If done right.

BTW, I didn't mention GM in the context of bailing them out-- just the point of how credit crunches have such widespread effects.

[Two Americas]

71. the difference, and it is a critical one

The railroad moved passengers and goods. That has value that does not depend upon people being required to imagine that it has value, or moght same day, in some "blue sky" intangible way. All the difference in the world. Rea

The government has in the past guaranteed finascing in order to keep production going fpr the benefit of the people, not to finance the industry that has been dismantling production for the last 30 years.

Yes, this bailout and the Penn Central bailout are related - they are exact opposites - just as Reganomoics is the exact opposite of prosperity.

You create wealth and build prosperity by doing or making something of value for people. That is the economy, the real economy. The false economy that Reaganomics created, of wheeling and dealing in people's misery, greed and slefishness, of making moeny out of thin air, of dismantling American industry, in destroying the labor force and the productive capacity is destroying the real economy. The false economy is in crisis because it does not work, and because it has bled the public dry in a massive transfer of wealth from the many into the hands of the few.

You don't give the addictive gambler yet another stake, after he gambled away the rent money, on the promise that this time he will win back the rent money and some grocery money to boot.

The problem is not that we don't trust the market, the problem is that the people running the market is untrustworthy, and the game is rigged. Big difference.

Yeah, yeah if we all just started feeling "bullish," confidence would return and everything would go up, up, up again and all would be well. Sure it would.

[AntiFascist]

46. Because mental illness is now on parity with physical illnesses...

the crazy banks which went temporarilly insane with their gambling addiction are now being provided an IV.

[Two Americas]

50. there was a time when this was not true

The pro-bailout people are not being honest. They are throwing out talking points, but when challenged cannot stand and defend those talking points. They are designed to confuse and frighten people.

Here is one important piece of information that is being withheld - it was not always the case that help for Main Street - or anything else - had to go through Wall Street. Wall Street intentionally set out to gain a stranglehold on all of us. It was no accident.

Back in the 80's we were sold a bill of goods. everything changed. Many of us warned of the dangers on deregulated finance and Reaganomics. Our predictions all came true.

Reaganomics is the cause of this crisis, and no "solution" that props back up Reaganomics can do anything but make things worse.

Don't fall for this bailout hustle. It is all lies, the same lies from the same people that started us down this path that has just about destroyed our country, and turned us all into debt slaves, over the last 25 years.

No, no, no - a thousand times no. Had we said "no" in the 80's, we would still have a country, and people would have trust and confidence, there would be no crisis, and our children and grandchildren would have a futures - trust and confidence in real things, human things, not trust in a bunch of lies and empty promises. The longer we put off saying "no," the worse things will get.

We are being told that if we would only trust the market, that money would flow, stocks would be up up up and all will be well. If we will just believe that their "assets" are worth something, then magically they will be worth something. But no one wants them - otherwise there would not be a crisis. So stick the working people with them?

In other words, the fault is ours for not trusting those who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. I guess Krugman is dishonest too

and of course I am dishonest.

Ok... .

by the way... the revolution is here. but guess what... you are highly disorganized

I guess I will seat by the side and watch the party

And I did not drink the kool aid, just understand why a MORE PROGRESSIVE bill would not pass at this time, even if I wish the House Majority WENT THERE...

Oh and this is global, but I am sure you knew this

Charges of dishonestly, up there with you are a DLCer.... what is next?

[Two Americas]

59. no

There are a few people, yourself and Krugman being the two examples with whom I am most familiar, who are exceptions. I should have mentioned that.

I have just re-read Krugman. He says Paulsen's plan was awful, and that Congress hasn't stepped up.

I agree.

Here is Krugman...

"They’re right to be outraged, but doing nothing isn’t a serious option."

I agree. I don't advocate "dong nothing" and I am outraged, and Krugman says I have the right to be outraged and I presume, the right to express that outrage. That is what I am doing.

Reading again all of the Krugman articles.

I don't know nadin, he seems very uncertain and his arguments are weak. I predict he changes his mind at some point over the next 12 months.

Mostly he is saying that the crisis is real, and that something must be done. I don't think very many people would argue about that. So why the ongoing uproar?

His worries about the bill in this column (yes, yes it has been changed since) are much stronger than his current reluctant and half-hearted support for gthe compromise.

No deal

I hate to say this, but looking at the plan as leaked, I have to say no deal. Not unless Treasury explains, very clearly, why this is supposed to work, other than through having taxpayers pay premium prices for lousy assets.

As I posted earlier today, it seems all too likely that a “fair price” for mortgage-related assets will still leave much of the financial sector in trouble. And there’s nothing at all in the draft that says what happens next; although I do notice that there’s nothing in the plan requiring Treasury to pay a fair market price. So is the plan to pay premium prices to the most troubled institutions? Or is the hope that restoring liquidity will magically make the problem go away?

Here’s the thing: historically, financial system rescues have involved seizing the troubled institutions and guaranteeing their debts; only after that did the government try to repackage and sell their assets. The feds took over S&Ls first, protecting their depositors, then transferred their bad assets to the RTC. The Swedes took over troubled banks, again protecting their depositors, before transferring their assets to their equivalent institutions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. the plan was NEVER leaked, it was PUBLISHED by the SENATE

so you could follow it in good faith... every damn version... all of them are in my HD

And Krugman said today on Oberman that this is far more serious than he even thought last week

He and I don't like this, and this version is FAR WORST because it is larded up

But the choice is quite Faustian

By the way, this will not lead to happy days again either, tomorrow

This crisis will contnue to deepen... it is more as to HOW DEEP it will go

On the bright side, as I told SW upthread, globalization is dead... follow the foreign press on that one

The Murican empire is dead as well,. we just haven't gotten the news

The scary one... USSR the last days part deux might be here.

As I said, these are seismic changes

[Two Americas]

66. I am on your side, I think

I can't figure out why you keep arguing about this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Because I see it as a critical step to get credit going

for the same reason Krugman would have voted for this bill as well...

Like 1930 it is part of the process... early years, very early years.

The next two years will be as critical as 1932-4

And I am not arguing, just trying to educate people who don't even understand how critical commercial paper is...

And I gave you a link of where it was POSTED.

And as to the same side... perhaps not... reality is that if I had my way... and I don't... I am far to the left of the American Left. FAR TO THE LEFT of you guys...

And I am astounded at how little organization there is... this is the moment to strike and organize... or I can bet on an IMF plan before the first two years of the Obama administration are over,.

[Two Americas]

69. all right nadin

I haven't told you that you are wrong, I haven't tried to silence you, I haven't disagreed with you.

You warn people about the dangers of a depression and of fascism, you try to wake people up to the serious crisis we face, you point out their denial and you try to inspire and motivate them, drawing from your extensive knowledge of history and your personal experience. That is good, keep doing that. It is needed.

I am going to talk to people about the failures of Reaganomics, and about the New Deal solutions that have worked in the past, because I think that this is also needed.

That means that for right now I am taking a "no" stance on the bailout. It (that I am saying that) isn't the end of the world, and it isn't in opposition to what you are saying.

Follow me around if you like, and every time I post you can add "but it is a serious crisis and we do need to do something" and I will agree with you about that every time.

[dailykoff]

92. Correctemundo.

On both counts.

[Alcibiades]

57. What you said.

It's Iraqi WMDs all over again, and supposed progressives are falling for it.

Unbelievable. Let's wait until there is a crisis and then throw wads of cash at it. Remember, this whole thing originated in the Bush administration. I wouldn't trust them to run a lemonade stand, much less a $700 billion bailout.

[scarletwoman]

58. "The pro-bailout people are not being honest." Now THAT'S an understatement!

Like, ya THINK?

Wonderful post, as always. The Reaganomics con-men really pulled off a successful scam on the American people.

I've been freaking out ever since 401Ks came on the scene. It was an absolutely diabolical, but masterful, plan. Sucker millions of ordinary citizens into putting their money in the stock market, which gave the plutocrats MORE money to play with -- AND (and this is the really diabolically clever part) now these ordinary citizens have to CARE about what happens in the stock market because their future prosperity depends upon it, so the poor suckers feel forced to support whatever the plutocrats want to do.

It's brilliantly evil. And pretty much everyone fell for it. Meanwhile, it gave cover for the Owner Class to piss private pension funds away.

Reaganomics is the cause of this crisis, and no "solution" that props back up Reaganomics can do anything but make things worse.

Don't fall for this bailout hustle. It is all lies, the same lies from the same people that started us down this path that has just about destroyed our country, and turned us all into debt slaves, over the last 25 years.

...The longer we put off saying "no," the worse things will get.

Amen. As I said in a post above, "Resist the beginnings." and "Consider the end."

:toast:
sw

[Irish Girl]

70. I've watched in horror too...

All my friends said, "But Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, et al says to put money into a ROTH IRA right away! This is a financially responsible thing to do."

All my friends said, "But work automatically makes me contribute to a 401(k). And they even match a certain percentage! This is great and a financially responsible thing to do."

And I thought, "uh oh. This is NOT good."

Soo clever and oh so evil. Now people will fight for this bailout because they fear losing everything. However, they barely realize everything has all ready been stolen from right underneath them.

[scarletwoman]

72. It's really awful. I refused to enroll in a 401k on principle. So, because I have no personal stake

in the stock market, I'm sorta inclined to think "tough noogies" when people worry about Wall Street.

On the other hand, I really don't want to blame the victim. I see lots of my co-workers getting seriously bummed out about their 401ks. I feel bad for them, and I would never even think of telling them that they were suckers for (literally) buying into such an obvious scam.

The problem is, it's really easy for the Plutocrats to find willing dupes in our poorly educated culture.

sw

[Two Americas]

74. well said

Very well said.

We were treated as though we were immoral or anti-social or something if we questioned this mad rush to put everything into the market.

They are not only fighting because they fear losing everything. They are fighting to cover up a lie, as well. It was greed that was motivating people, and they just called it "being responsible" to rationalize it. People have been lying to themselves and others about this all along. Oops. Now what? Quick! Cover it up! Paper it over!

"Responsible" turns out to be shamefully irresponsible, and if the house of cards comes down people might have to face their responsibility for the destruction of the society that was the price they forced us all to pay for the sake of their greed and selfishness and deception. Oops! Chickens coming home to roost.

[AntiFascist]

89. I have to agree with this post...

I also distrusted the people pushing 401Ks at a company I worked for, in fact, I distrusted the whole internet bubble mentality. The problem, as I saw it in Silicon Valley, was that people were motivated to make vast sums of money quickly by taking companies public, and then often exited the deals before anything substantial was ever being developed. Also there was this sort of wierd buzz going around about how finance in the 21st century was transforming into a new world of infinite capital resulting in tremendous profit. The Enron scandal had a lot to do with this along with the success of 'legitimate' companies like Google.

[marions ghost]

119. "pretty much everyone fell for it"

as you say scarletwoman. This is the crux of it IMO. Yes I saw the potential for 401K exploitation. What was it that made people like me NOT do it when offered, while many others did?

You are so right about Reagonomics being "brilliantly evil."

The Reaganomics scam DEPENDED on the fact that people WANTED to trust the system, the government, the business sector. Everyone was forced into the mold in the 80's, no matter where you were coming from ideologically, but so many avidly supported it.

OK SO WHY did large numbers of Americans buy into the lies at that point? Were they gullible, wishful, trusting, naive??? I'm interested in the mass psychology of it all.

Any thoughts?

[EFerrari]

80. You'd have to give Paulson a brain-ectomy because he probably can't think

that way.

It's also true that in BushWorld, the SBA and other similar agencies are run by the PodPeople -- to fund the wrong people or not to fund the right people. We need a whole system reboot in order to get them working properly again to the point where they could do something as simple as make student loans.

Your ideas make perfect sense to me. We don't have the leadership or the infrastructure to do it.

[intheflow]

85. I've been seeing The Nightly Business Report on PBS for about 25 years.

I don't watch it because from the first time I saw it, I watched about 10 minutes before I started screaming at the tv: "You're living on the moon!! Stocks are not the real economy!! It's speculation and make-believe!!!" :grr: :grr: :grr: It just pisses me off to watch people pretend Wall St. has any relevance in the reality of most people's lives. That what I keep thinking about with this bailout. It's total fiction, a story spun by people with money for people with money. The rest of us--the most of us--are SOL.

[Two Americas]

87. can't make payroll? here is the plan

When this notion of setting up a credit line to pay operating expenses, while your cash was "working" for you in various markets was first being peddled by fast talking salespeople - who were making the same arguments the pro-bailout people are making today - I happened to be running a company with a payroll to meet.

How, had we fallen for that seductive scam - and we did not because we knew that what is in fact happening now was the certain and inevitable outcome - and were I still in that position, here would be my plan.

I would call a meeting of the employees.

I would tell them that I had made a horrible mistake and I would beg their forgiveness.

I would tell them that we should all know better, that we should have learned as children the dangers of unbridled greed. Remember the fox and the grapes? We should know that it was the people here that matter, not the bottom line, and that it was the contribution we were making to society that had the real value, not our status or riches.

I would tell them that I had taken the money they were generating for the company, and which they had a legitimate moral claim to a fair share of, and I had put it into the market hoping to cleverly make more for myself. I was too weak to turn down the temptation, and I had now placed all of them at risk.

I would tell them that we had a solid business, and we paid our bills and our employees from the money on hand. Our customers paid us, and that income was money we were holding in trust for the employees and suppliers, and I had no moral right to gamble with that money.

I would promise them that I would never do it again. I would humbly ask them to stand together and together we could turn things around, go back to an honest dollar honestly earned, real value produced, people and their work supported and honored.

I would tell them that we were going to set up a profit sharing plan, and a true retirement plan for all of the employees and dump the whole 401k nonsense of putting retirement money into the stock market.

I would ask each employee how much they needed to get through the day, the weekend. I would tell them that immediately after the meeting I would get on the phone with the accounts receivables and with the suppliers, explain or situation and what we need to do, and see if they can help. I would tell them that all of my personal savings and investments would immediately be transferred to the business to meet payroll as quickly as possible.

I would tell them that I would not take a dime of pay for myself until every one of them were paid, and would sell my house and car if I had to and sleep in the office until we got through this crisis together.

That is the true "bailout plan."

[dailykoff]

88. So that's what the payroll thing is all about.

Scams, scams ,and more scams, and then a scam to hide the scams. Why am I not suprised.

[Two Americas]

95. I saw it

There is no secret or mystery about any of this. The people spinning the bailout are throwing up a huge smokescreen.

When Reagan deregulated credit and banking and finance, the market salespeople were all over the place, like an army of termites. It was all spelled out - the exact scam that the pro-bailout people are now trying to deny. Oh were we all going to be players now, weren't we all going to be clever. Everyone at the time knew exactly what the scam was. They got in because they hoped to make a killing, but no one could deny with a straight face that it was immoral, risky, dangerous and destructive. They hoped to get their's before the whole thing went south. Business after business was destroyed, industry after industry collapsed. It became easier - much easier, and less risky - for some fast and clever talker to get financing to build a thousand fast food outlets - even though he had never done a thing before in the restaurant industry - then it was for a family run restaurant to stay in business. It was easier to set up a plant in Taiwan than to keep one going here. No one cared about making anything anymore, you made money out of thin air. You made money by destroying the productive capacity of the country, by dismantling our economy, by destroying the workers and communities. And that is exactly what has happened.

[dailykoff]

98. The whole "helping Main Street" thing is so ironic.

I hear it on NPR constantly. But WHAT Main Street? They killed Main Street long ago, and now they're killing just about every other street with their shitty toxic mortgages.

[sandnsea]

90. Ah, the bootstraps plan

How quaint.

And small business capital is not in the market, it's in expanding the business because if you aren't growing, or at least modernizing, you're dying.

[Two Americas]

93. you can mock and ridicule all you like

Yes, it is all "quaint" and old fashioned. But so is prosperity, I guess. Business on a handshake and look a man in the eye, business based on trust and integrity - all to be mocked and ridiculed as obsolete and to be discarded. That is exactly what the people selling various "financial instruments" told us back when Reaganomics first started. How stupid a person would have to be to not see this opportunity and take advantage of it! Why not,everyone else is. You will be left behind! Why should you miss out on the loot? Why not get in on your share?

Trust is not obsolete though, is it? And trust seems to have broken down. You see, the pro-market arguments defeat themselves. I think that os why the pro-bailout people are so frantic and aggressive. They are trying to argue a self-defeating line, a line of reasoning that can not withstand any scrutiny whatsoever.

We once saw trust as something that was earned, and confidence was based on results and integrity. But we were told that if we trusted - had confidence - even though had not been earned, that we would make money anyway. If enough people were fooled into thinking there was value in something, lured by greed, then the price would go up, up, up - so then it WOULD then be valuable. For a while. "See?" the salesmen said. They were "explaining how the market worked," they said. They were selling snake oil, and they still are.

If what you advocate is the better way to go, and my ideas don't work, then how come we have a crisis? How come the country is in a shambles? How come greed and corruption are rampant?

And most importantly, and most germane to this exchange, how come people are so angry and hostile and crazed with fear?

Grow or die. Eat or be eaten. Bully or be bullied. Yes, I think you are describing the problem and the cause of this crisis quite accurately.

[sandnsea]

94. What in the hell are you talking about

You think the reason small businesses don't have capital is because they blew it in the stock market.

That isn't true.

It's got nothing to do with "looking in the eyes" and seeing souls and whatever other gibberish.

It has to do with running a small business and it's the same no matter who the President is.

Throwing Reagans name at me will never make me a Republian, no matter how many DUers think it does. My life doesn't revolve around what DU thinks.

[Two Americas]

96. gibberish, eh?

I am very confident on this.

I know what I am talking about here.

[sandnsea]

97. uh huh

So much for being able to "stand and defend" your points.

[Two Americas]

100. I am right here

And I am not going anywhere.

You said "you think the reason small businesses don't have capital is because they blew it in the stock market."

No I don't, and I didn't say that. I think we are all caught in the Reaganomics trap. 25 years ago people knew what they were doing with this. Younger people don't know that it was ever any other way. They should know that. Then they can make their own mind up about it, don't you think?

So you tell me. Why don't small businesses have enough cash on hand to meet payroll?

[sandnsea]

101. Here are your words

"I would tell them that I had taken the money they were generating for the company, and which they had a legitimate moral claim to a fair share of, and I had put it into the market hoping to cleverly make more for myself."

This is not the problem for small business owners. They operate on either a monthly or quarterly revolving style credit. They do this because orders and payments aren't always smooth. I'm waiting to collect $1,000 on an order placed back in July. There have been a few glitches, people went on vacation, etc. It's no big deal to me because I don't have any employees. But if that were a $100,000 order, and I had invested $50,000 of materials into that order, and then didn't get paid yet - I would quickly have a problem paying employees. Successful businesses operate on credit. They don't tie up their cash this way. And their profits go into expansion or modernization.

That's the way it works. And I'm 50 years old, and that's the way it worked 25 years ago too.

[Two Americas]

104. self delete

No big deal. Inaccurate statement by me.

[sandnsea]

105. You just can't read at all

I am not dependent on credit. I just said it doesn't matter to me because I don't have any employees. I don't need any credit. I don't have any credit.

Why can't you deal with the facts put in front of you.

You were wrong about business owners putting their money in the market.

You're wrong about how businesses operate.

You're wrong about me.

You're wrong about everything.

[Two Americas]

107. no problem

Tried to offer an olive branch.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

110. No you didn't.

You ascribed ulterior motive to the other poster - either through ignorance - or as a bullshit passive aggressive attempt to cover your weak argument.

[Two Americas]

112. begging your pardon?

That is way out of line.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

108. "Why can't you deal with the facts put in front of you."

Because, according to the conspiracy kooks, you must have a vested direct personal interest to be in favor of some sort of a bail-out. Either you have a million dollars in the stock market or you are a paid shill for Paulson.

I was going to chime in to give that poster the benefit of the doubt and try to have a discussion but forget about it after that post.

[Two Americas]

113. that is a lie

If you are referring to me, you have maliciously misrepresented what I said and also called me a conspiracy kook.

I strongly object to this.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

114. If you weren't ascribing an ulterior motive to the other poster then I apologise.....

......but it certainly looked like it. I thought so and so did the other poster.

It just bugs the f*ck out of me when people need to ascribe motive (you have a credit line or you have money in the market etc.) when their argument fails. It's a personal attack and it's bullshit.

I've noticed, in the last couple days, a few notorious conspiracy folks (not you) feel they have to shoe-horn events of the last few days in to their conspiratorial view - for instance, the story about Massachusetts losing their credit funding because they are a blue state and not because the municipal bond market is falling apart. I've seen it in my business (I deal with a low income housing program that relies on municipal bonds) for the last several months and stories are starting to come in from all over the spectrum. it doesn't affect me directly but I have been seeing it for the last 6 months.

[Two Americas]

115. no way

The other member is the one who volunteered information about their situation. I never speculated or insinuated. I expressed support and empathy and said nothing in the least derogatory. They took offense for some reason, I didn't pass judgment as to why or argue about that (I did not intend to say anything offensive at all) and I withdrew it as a courtesy. I may have misread what the poster meant. All of the posts are so short and terse that it is difficult to know what they are saying.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

128. She took offense because you claimed she had a credit line for her buisness......

..........and THAT was why she was arguing her point of view. You ascribed a motive to her argument that wasn't there.

The information volunteered by the other poster was that she DIDN'T have a business credit line or any other personal stake in the bail-out such as a large stock portfolio (or any portfolio for that matter) yet you suggested she throw herself on the mercy of the DU court and ask for help because her business credit line was in jeopardy.

Now you say you withdrew it as a "courtesy"? Bullshit.

[Two Americas]

131. WTF?

They didn't say specifically one way or the other. It could be read either way. I guessed wrong. I acknowledged that and withdrew it. I was courteous and friendly at all times.

Again you misrepresent a post that is no longer there. It is your behavior that is extremely odd and out of line here.

[Desertrose]

91. Because your ideas help those who need it most

and *they* don't give a flying f*ck about anything beyond hanging on to their own wealth.

Your post #58 summed it up nicely. Reagonomics and investing retirement hopes in Wall Street...and who benefited again? Not the ones who can use it.....


:hi: :hug: SW

I like that...Main Street DOESN'T have to go through Wall Street!

[AdHocSolver]

99. Your solution would help Americans. The bailout saves the profit of the crooks who caused the mess.

Giving billions to these "collapsed" financial institutions will actually make matters worse. It will just boost the amount of bad debt. It is pouring money down a sinkhole, or trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.

This bailout is just another variation of the "trickle down" theory. Give the money to the wealthy and they will ensure that everyone prospers.

Your suggestion would actually help people and help the economy. How? Because instead of bottling up the money supply, your proposed solution would give money to people who would actually spend it in ways to help the economy.

There is no guarantee that these big banks will loan the money to college students or small businesses or people looking for moderate mortgages. In fact, they will deny these people help based on the same lame excuse that the banks don't make enough profit on such loans to make it "worthwhile".

The bailout threat is extortion plain and simple. If any money at all is given to these failed financial institutions (and it should not be $700 billion), it should have very strong strings attached.

As usual scarletwoman, you have nailed reality. I recommend you for presidential economics advisor.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

102. I'll take a stab at this ...... ......................

Because the 700 billion you are proposing wouldn't last ten seconds. After that money was turned in to loans, where would the NEXT batch of money come from?


Hint: Investors, pension plans, mutual funds, brokerage houses etc. etc. provide the actual capital for mortgages, student loans and commercial paper............but you cant walk in to a pension plan office and ask for a mortgage or a student loan.

Think of Fannie Mae and the other institutions as a CONDUIT for money from all these thousands of different sources around the world.

The local mom and pop bank or credit union wouldn't be able to support long term loans like 30 year fixed rate mortgages on a continual basis. They wouldn't be able to support these loans on THEIR deposits alone and they certainly couldn't tie up deposits for thirty years. A pension plan might want to sit on a 30 year mortgage backed bond but a depositor won't.

Did you ever wonder why most credit unions offer only home equity loans? Because they are, for the most part, short term money. Mortgage loans that banks keep in house are called "portfolio loans" and are, for the most part, short term ARMS and other short term vehicles like option arms.......that's why the lenders with large exposure to these products got crushed.

For your idea to work, the mom and pop bank would have to, you guessed it, securitize mortgages/student loans and float bonds on Wall Street................I suppose it could be done but it wouldn't be nearly as efficient.

Unless you want to nationalize the banking industry. I'm not totally against that idea. I think fannie/freddie should remain public.

[G_j]

103. it is blackmail, plain and simple

our way, or your credit is dead,
no $$ for you!
no payrolls, no... bla ba..

& the scary thing is, they can deliver on their threats.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

106. K&R. There's no legitimate reason this money has to go through Wall Street.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

109. Excellent and well stated !!!!!

YOU should be in charge of solving the current difficulty.

[earth mom]

111. Why not put 700 billion into green technology for jobs, peace, prosperity & to save the planet?

That's where I think the money should go.

But that said, I agree with your OP. :thumbsup:

[closeupready]

118. Congressmembers (well, Senators at least) are all powerful millionaires,

many (most?) have been corrupted by DC's ways, so this is why, on their list of priorities, poor people, working people, the lower classes - these people all come LAST.

[Virginia Dare]

122. There is also a large segment of the electorate..

who consistently vote against their best interests. Single issue voters like the so-called "pro-lifers".

[closeupready]

125. Yes indeed.

n/t

[Virginia Dare]

120. It makes sense to rational progressives..

but we need repubs to get anything to pass unfortunately.

[whosinpower]

126. They are using fear to sell this idea

But that is not to say that the crisis is not real. My own thoughts are that institutional banks are in trouble - because of the war. They are using fear of what will happen to mainstreet - should Wall Street fail to get their money. It is extortion. But more than that - you have a huge huge problem - and the problem is NOT that the credit market has frozen - that is the symptom. And the problem is not the greed of Wall Street - that is a minor symptom of a much bigger issue.

The problem is that your leaders, and your corporations have sold you out - and taken for granted that the American economy was just fine as long as the market was strong, and wealth was being generated. But real wealth is not made by inflating value of a good or house - real wealth is made by labour. And labour has left for cheaper waters to other countries. You've switched from being a manufacturing nation to a paper pushing nation - and the erosion was not evident because the markets always looked good---on paper. But is in not real.

And now, there is a global crisis of confidence - that is no one wants to loan you money because it has become appallingly clear that what was touted as having been worth X, is actually much less. This would not be quite so bad, except that you have a huge huge mountain of debt racked up by this last administration - foreign investors will be asking - why give them money and prop them up if there is no chance whatsoever of seeing that money again - for what benefit? You can't work your way out of the debt - because you no longer export more than you import.

Now, your nation(and most others) operate on credit. There is no guarentee that 700 billion paid to buy crap will free up the market - but there is no time for 700 billion to trickle up with your concept. I think your concept is great but, Banks are frozen now - and I don't think you can afford to wait - literally, because payrolls must be met, etc, etc. Isn't is a strange coincidence that the amount touted by Paulson is exactly the amount that has been spent on the Iraq War. Where did that money come from? Taxes? Nope - taxes were cut, so the money had to come from somewhere.......

[Lydia Leftcoast]

127. You're making too much sense

That's no longer allowed in mainstream discourse in this country.

[scarletwoman]

136. Is it just me? I mean, my parents put great stock in being sensible. They were children of the Great

Depression. They absolutely abhorred waste and profligacy. Cheating? Lying? Totally unthinkable!

What the hell happened? How did people get so stupid and greedy? I was brought up to value critical thinking and empirical knowledge, and ethics above all.

I must have been incredibly naive, because as a kid I assumed that everyone else shared those values. Now I'm thinking that my parents must have been real outliers -- some weird and rare sub-group destined for extinction.

Is common sense (not to mention common decency) a recessive gene in the body politic? Only popping up now and then as a mutation?

sw

[Lydia Leftcoast]

137. Twenty-eight years of Republican and Republican Lite dominating public discourse,

has had a toxic effect on American culture.

In addition, I began teaching college in the early years of the Reagan administration. That was when the federal government got rid of all sorts of grants and low-interest loans for college students and made it so that ROTC was the best way for a low-income student to go through college affordably. The school I was teaching at didn't have ROTC, and the faculty came under great pressure to authorize granting academic credit for ROTC courses taken at other schools in our consortium. Since there were several long-time pacifists on the faculty and the president was a former Marine, discussions were pretty heated.

A little earlier, companies had stopped hiring graduates who had other than professional degrees. Back when I graduated, companies would take virtually any major for management training, including history majors like my senior year roommate. Suddenly, only business and computer science majors were wanted.

Aside from the fact that this shift cut the companies' training expenses, the sudden rush of students to majors that train for specific careers (not just business administration but marketing, finance, accounting, management information systems, human resources management, and other studies that we would have though of as job titles, not academic majors)and the concurrent abandonment of the liberal arts, made for a more obedient student body. The only riots occurred when the football team won or didn't win.

The students who were in college during the early years of the Reagan administration are now 45 years old, so a lot of people have really known nothing but Republicanism.

[femrap]

129. Only rich white boys

are bailed out...the rest of us must declare bankruptcy.

That is the law of today's Greedy Capitalism. These rich white boys try to make you feel stupid by telling you how complicated the financials are when they're not. These 'little pieces of paper' invented by Wall Street scam artists, Credit Default Swaps and other Derivatives, are bad imitations of games in Vegas. Roulette gives you better odds.

Derivatives are like options on options...no assets behind them whatsoever. There is nothing to sell.

WASF...even more so with the $700B bailout.

These rich white boys have absolutely no shame...they are laughing behind closed doors knowing they are scamming the stupid public again.

And our 'representatives' are complicit.

[kentuck]

130. Would you please stop talking like a common sense Democrat??

:-)

[Usrename]

133. That's exactly right.

This whole thing was supposed to torpedo Obama's campaign.

[Kurovski]

134. K&R.

Hell, if they sent me $100,000 right now I could bailout my family, and the bank and credit card companies would be getting their dough.

I thought politicians always said Americans know best what to do with their money, not the government. Isn't that the reason they want to "give us our money" by cutting taxes? What the fuck happened?

I know exactly where the money should go, it would keep an old woman off the streets, and the odious bank that gave a desperate senior a $1,500 a month mortgage payment despite her $1,200 monthly income would get their money. Not that the bastard-shits fucking deserve it for the underhanded stunt they pulled.

[scarletwoman]

135. Ah, Kurovski. I got nothin' except my outrage. I'm trying to get some other ways of looking at this

situation out there in the collective mind. I don't suppose it does much good, and I'm pretty damn sure it won't effect the House vote tomorrow.

All I've got is just the pale and paltry satisfaction that at least I wasn't completely silent. It doesn't for a moment outweigh the regret I feel for not somehow doing more.

I used to think about running for office, or leading a movement, or going out in a blaze of gunfire throwing vials of my own blood on the doors of the Pentagon. But no, I stayed under the radar, lived my funky old hippie life, and retired to the woods as fast I could.

And, in the immortal words of Shakespeare: All are punished!

I'm so sorry.

Love,
sw

[Kurovski]

139. Thank you dear one.

And love to you as well.

Duty and family called, and I would never refuse that particular call. I think we'll figure a way out of this.

I also lived in a place well suited to a lack of funds. Fish, crab, oysters, clams, deer, berries and apples. A rich area in that regard. CLEAN AIR. It's done for now.

I fully intend to get the family out from under.