Hey Trissel, I completely agree with you. But now that the stocks have fallen 777 points, how long do you think public sentiment will continue to run against passing the bill? I bet they back down, and polls start indicating that Americans want a rescue package passed (and that what gets passed isn’t significantly different from what was on the table today).
Jim R, the article you posted doesn’t weigh-in on the expediency of a bail-out plan.
It could even be interrupted to work against your point:
“It’s completely unnecessary to do a Paulson-style plan in Europe,” said Sylvester Eijffinger, a professor of European financial economics at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. “These are isolated problems.”
I should read the actual plan before commenting, I know. But I’m going to anyway :-)I’ve read quite a number of summaries, so I’m sure I understand the main points of the plan.
I fail to understand how the bailout as written would make any substantial fundamental lasting change. It’s really, REALLY big bandaid. Do we need a bandaid? Stocks dropped, big time. But it seems likely they would eventually rebound. The only positive thing I hear about the plan is that it’s supposed to cause that to happen more quickly. How’s that??? By keeping the banks from freezing lending? Banks borrow & loan money, and invest money. Even the idiots presently at the helms know that. They’ll invest more convservatively, but even without the bailout, they’ll still invest, right?
Is it true that leading economists have analyzed the plan and don’t believe it could be successful? I’ve read a whole lot of articles in the past day which indicate it’s likely to fail. Until I see convincing info otherwise, I stand by my position that it’s not feasible (although I’ll be the first to admit I have no idea what will work).
Unfortunately, the tide very quickly turned and I’d put my 401K into a bet that the next vote will pass, and that the plan passed will not differ in any significant way from the plan voted on yesterday (could that have just been yesterday??)
Monty P: That probably explains why they’re not doing a Paulson-style bailout in Europe. We weren’t doing a Paulson-style bailout three months ago, either.
There is a major crisis underway, and sitting here saying “it’s all fear tactics” really flies in the face of the evidence and reminds me of the rhetoric put forth by those who don’t believe in global warming. Central banks world wide are not going to participate in a Bush lie. Doing nothing really isn’t a solution. While I certainly would like to think there is no crisis, and while I find repugnant the notion of putting forth billions of dollars to banks that got us in the mess in the first place, I’m not really willing to take the risk of doing nothing when the potential costs are so high. If you are, than you should put your money where your mouth is and say that if things get as bad as they are forecasting will happen, you’ll be willing to pay the added costs for me. You’ll give up your retirement savings. You’ll give up your business. You’ll give up your home to foreclosure because you can’t sell it. You’ll give up your job.
–all because you wanted to “stick it to the bankers” or you wanted to maintain the purity of pure capitalistic ideas or you just didn’t want to pay for it or you just don’t trust “the man”…I really don’t know what your motivations are.
The fact is we’re all in the same boat, and the direction in which you would have it go provides damned little upside potential with a hell of a lot of down-side risk. I don’t really see the benefit of that choice. You have participation and agreement between leadership of all four congressional caucuses and the administration in about a week. This is unprecedented and should speak to the urgency of the situation. Perhaps the deal isn’t perfect, but if you have a better solution and knowledge on how you can get the five major players representing extremely disparate interests and factions to turn on a dime, agree with you, and say “ok” than let’s hear it.
This is a personal web site and does not represent the views or policies of my employer. If you come across an item that you happen to find offensive then you have not been reading long enough because there are lots of things that are offensive on this site. Sorry…
16 Responses to “I got nothing to say today…”
…I am royaly cheesed off about everything.
Most notably that the F1 video you linked to has already been pulled.
I’d like to hear about how cheesed off you are about the debate Friday night.
@jkruse: YEEEEEEAAAARGGG!!!
be happy that corporate wellfare was defeated for at least one day
Get over it and write something. I demand to be entertained!
@trissel: I am happy that the Republicans have once again been proven to be the lying cry babies that they really are.
Hey Trissel, I completely agree with you. But now that the stocks have fallen 777 points, how long do you think public sentiment will continue to run against passing the bill? I bet they back down, and polls start indicating that Americans want a rescue package passed (and that what gets passed isn’t significantly different from what was on the table today).
Grover Norquist is having a good day.
Fear tactics always seem to work. Just look how they passed the patriot act.
last post was to Lynne
Yeah…it’s all just manipulated fear tactics: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/29/business/eu ro.php
Jim R, the article you posted doesn’t weigh-in on the expediency of a bail-out plan.
It could even be interrupted to work against your point:
“It’s completely unnecessary to do a Paulson-style plan in Europe,” said Sylvester Eijffinger, a professor of European financial economics at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. “These are isolated problems.”
I should read the actual plan before commenting, I know. But I’m going to anyway :-)I’ve read quite a number of summaries, so I’m sure I understand the main points of the plan.
I fail to understand how the bailout as written would make any substantial fundamental lasting change. It’s really, REALLY big bandaid. Do we need a bandaid? Stocks dropped, big time. But it seems likely they would eventually rebound. The only positive thing I hear about the plan is that it’s supposed to cause that to happen more quickly. How’s that??? By keeping the banks from freezing lending? Banks borrow & loan money, and invest money. Even the idiots presently at the helms know that. They’ll invest more convservatively, but even without the bailout, they’ll still invest, right?
Is it true that leading economists have analyzed the plan and don’t believe it could be successful? I’ve read a whole lot of articles in the past day which indicate it’s likely to fail. Until I see convincing info otherwise, I stand by my position that it’s not feasible (although I’ll be the first to admit I have no idea what will work).
Unfortunately, the tide very quickly turned and I’d put my 401K into a bet that the next vote will pass, and that the plan passed will not differ in any significant way from the plan voted on yesterday (could that have just been yesterday??)
Monty P: That probably explains why they’re not doing a Paulson-style bailout in Europe. We weren’t doing a Paulson-style bailout three months ago, either.
There is a major crisis underway, and sitting here saying “it’s all fear tactics” really flies in the face of the evidence and reminds me of the rhetoric put forth by those who don’t believe in global warming. Central banks world wide are not going to participate in a Bush lie. Doing nothing really isn’t a solution. While I certainly would like to think there is no crisis, and while I find repugnant the notion of putting forth billions of dollars to banks that got us in the mess in the first place, I’m not really willing to take the risk of doing nothing when the potential costs are so high. If you are, than you should put your money where your mouth is and say that if things get as bad as they are forecasting will happen, you’ll be willing to pay the added costs for me. You’ll give up your retirement savings. You’ll give up your business. You’ll give up your home to foreclosure because you can’t sell it. You’ll give up your job.
–all because you wanted to “stick it to the bankers” or you wanted to maintain the purity of pure capitalistic ideas or you just didn’t want to pay for it or you just don’t trust “the man”…I really don’t know what your motivations are.
The fact is we’re all in the same boat, and the direction in which you would have it go provides damned little upside potential with a hell of a lot of down-side risk. I don’t really see the benefit of that choice. You have participation and agreement between leadership of all four congressional caucuses and the administration in about a week. This is unprecedented and should speak to the urgency of the situation. Perhaps the deal isn’t perfect, but if you have a better solution and knowledge on how you can get the five major players representing extremely disparate interests and factions to turn on a dime, agree with you, and say “ok” than let’s hear it.
http://www.skibbertarian.blogspot.com
There two sides to this debate - the people who are legitimately unsure of the best course of action and the people who are FOS.