How is anyone able to pass definitive judgment on the bailout's effects at this point?

[jpgray]

As for the bailout being a bad bill, I think that's been almost universally acknowledged. But was there any consensus on:

-What sort of downturn we were in for with or without the bailout

-How and when exactly the bailout was intended to take effect

-What sort of measurable effects we could expect from the bailout over such and such a time, good or bad

-Whether we can attribute day-by-day DJIA gains or losses to the bailout directly

-Whether we can presume that the losses would have been greater or less without the bailout

There's a long list of things that it's extremely difficult to suss out, and it may take weeks of data to adequately support a substantial opinion. I'm not saying people should shut up about it, but could we at least mitigate the tone of absolutely certainty either way? I don't think it's at all clear the bailout either staved off a greater disaster or is doing nothing / exacerbating the current crisis. Any expert opinion out there on what we should expect and how we will know the true impacts of the bill?

[leftofthedial]

1. we aren't.

I think we should just trust our wise and noble leaders. They'll do the right thing.

Maybe we should encourage them to give Secretary Paulson another trillion dollars. If they tack on enough tax giveaways to the republicans, I'm sure that even they would vote for it this time.

Just think, without the bailout, things would REALLY be bad today, huh?

[jpgray]

3. Why can't people debate this honestly on either side?

This is a discussion forum, not a game-changing political powerhouse that hurts or helps people directly and thus requires flamboyant rhetorical tricks and radical activism. Why do people misrepresent the arguments of the opposing view, leave out uncomfortable facts for their side and seek to score points on ad hominems in an effort to turn the issue into a petty personality war? What's the point? This is just a fucking internet message board. How does any of this create a positive discussion?

[leftofthedial]

8. I suppose sarcasm is a form of dishonesty if you want to get technical

The bailout was a bad idea, made much worse by *democrats!* before being passed by *democrats!*.

We've already flogged all the reasons.

It was a bad idea. It is not working. The recipients of our largess don't even intend to use the money for another couple of weeks. They still have no idea how they'll use the money. The supply side targets of the giveaway now say they don't even want any of the money if it means they have to obey even the minimally responsible business standards that are hinted at in the bill...

I haven't used ad hominen, I don't believe. I also haven't misrepresented the arguments of my opponents. They are ridiculous enough without my intervention.

[jpgray]

10. If not meant as a parody of those who supported the bailout, it's often read that way

Which is a chief problem of the internets. :P Even those who never meant their sarcasm that way are often lumped together with the few who did. Divining intent is often extremely difficult, and thus posts that make use of invective can raise the personal stakes of an argument to the point that each side mistrusts and hates the other. I'm not arguing that sarcasm should be proscribed, just that ideally it should be used with more care if the poster in question wants a discussion instead of a fight.

But really, I suppose this is such an emotional issue that those expectations are probably unfair. Sorry if I seemed to be jumping on you--I'm more frustrated at the overall phenomenon than any one poster in particular.

[MercutioATC]

2. We can't. However, one of its primary effects was supposed to be to restore confidence.

...and that doesn't seem to be happening yet.

Since that "confidence" would be more due to the idea of having a plan to fix things rather than actual results, the current stste of the market doesn't bode well...at least not yet.

[AngryOldDem]

4. I think it's really out of our hands now.

The world markets are calling the shots. Wall Street may think the bailout is what's needed to restore confidence, but London, Shanghai, and Tokyo may see things a little differently.

[phantom power]

5. Not entirely true....

The concrete thing that buying Big Shitpile was (theoretically) going to do was get the toxic paper in one place, and supposedly let the banks get back to evaluating each other for credit. No actual purchasing is scheduled to take place until mid-month, so pragmatically nothing has changed yet.

On the other hand, you're sure right that the markets don't feel very soothed.

[jpgray]

7. But it's not as though the markets are reacting in isolation to the bailout

We also have record job losses, world markets and banks taking similar heat--take your pick.

[percussivemadness]

6. The Liquidity Plan hasn`t been implemented yet, so all discussion should be moot

until we actually see that

[MercutioATC]

9. See post #2.

Granted, there's been no implementation yet, but I don't think the questions are completely moot.

The market is obviously not gaining any confidence from the idea.