Disconnect Between American Peasantry and Elites, Politicians, and Media

[Sacrilege]

Everywhere all over the internet, I read about how average people are against the "bailout" bill. I hear in the media how Congresspeople are reporting hundreds of angry phone calls and telegrams from constituents speaking out against the "bailout." Yet on TV I see political leaders in unison urging passage of the bill. Of course the wealthy want the bill to pass; their capital gains in a good market will always beat any tax increase Obama enacts.

But what is really surprising is how basically every single person I see from the Fifth Estate is very pro bailout.... and seemingly stupefied that some country Republican Representatives are actually listening to their Luddite rural constituents.

The most stupefied was the anchor of BBC America, who acted as if Americans had just elected the Taliban into office or something. He kept repeating how every rational person, and everyone else around the world, wanted America to pass the "bailout" bill. As if it is the American tax payer's obligation to prop up the rest of the world.

I have heard left wingers whine before that for all their perceived liberal bias, the media are firmly in the pocket of the corporations they work for? Does anyone agree? Have you observed condescending tones from Media Elites regarding the failure of the "bailout" to pass? Is everyone in the media actually a secret Neocon fluffer?

 

[MadRat]

I am the lord of my own domain... when the wife approves.

 

[Throckmorton]

Well this isn't a Democracy, but a Republic, for good reason.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Well this isn't a Democracy, but a Republic, for good reason.

So you're implying the average person isn't sophisticated enough to understand the "bailout" will help them? And politicians should vote for it even though their constituents are against it?

Do you also hold that view regarding war?

 

[nageov3t]

what's good for Goldman Sachs is good for me, so that's generally what I go with.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Well this isn't a Democracy, but a Republic, for good reason.

So you're implying the average person isn't sophisticated enough to understand the "bailout" will help them? And politicians should vote for it even though their constituents are against it?

Do you also hold that view regarding war?

I can definitely say the average joe is not capable of making this decision. It is highly complex and well above the thought processes and knowledge levels of joe sixpack who barely knows what APR on a credit card is. They caught up in the idea that it's more of their "hard earned taxes" and they want "them rich bankers" to fail. Many simply don't understand the bigger picture.

I'm relatively on the fence with it, probably because even the experts are. There is definitely no clear picture here, but my point is that listening to the wishes of people with no damn clue about the economy at all is simply bad policy. It's why a general wouldn't ask somebody on the street on their opinion of how to invade a country and why a physician wouldn't ask the hospital's janitor to help consult on somebody's diagnosis.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Well this isn't a Democracy, but a Republic, for good reason.

So you're implying the average person isn't sophisticated enough to understand the "bailout" will help them? And politicians should vote for it even though their constituents are against it?

Do you also hold that view regarding war?

The War counted on Peoples lack of sophistication in order to convince them. Yes, the people are not sophisticated enough to understand the Bailout.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Well this isn't a Democracy, but a Republic, for good reason.

So you're implying the average person isn't sophisticated enough to understand the "bailout" will help them? And politicians should vote for it even though their constituents are against it?

Do you also hold that view regarding war?

The War counted on Peoples lack of sophistication in order to convince them. Yes, the people are not sophisticated enough to understand the Bailout.

Wow, the two situations line up perfectly with your preconceived notions. Amazing.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Well this isn't a Democracy, but a Republic, for good reason.

So you're implying the average person isn't sophisticated enough to understand the "bailout" will help them? And politicians should vote for it even though their constituents are against it?

Do you also hold that view regarding war?

The War counted on Peoples lack of sophistication in order to convince them. Yes, the people are not sophisticated enough to understand the Bailout.

Wow, the two situations line up perfectly with your preconceived notions. Amazing.

Merely answering 2 questions.

Thanks for being the example of "sophistication" to prove my points. :thumbsup:

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
and everyone else around the world, wanted America to pass the "bailout" bill. As if it is the American tax payer's obligation to prop up the rest of the world.

Is failure to pass the bill a de facto abdication of America's financial leadership?

The world looks to America to provide guidance, indications, innovations, and leadership in times of financial hardship. We have the largest economy and one of the most sophisticated and esteemed central banks. If America fails to pass some fix, the market will correct itself regardless, and everyone will remember America wasn't needed. If America passes a bill, the market will adjust and everyone will remember the action of the US government, and any actions the market could have taken in absence of American leadership will remain unknowns. The psychological effect is enormous.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
and everyone else around the world, wanted America to pass the "bailout" bill. As if it is the American tax payer's obligation to prop up the rest of the world.

Is failure to pass the bill a de facto abdication of America's financial leadership?

The world looks to America to provide guidance, indications, innovations, and leadership in times of financial hardship. We have the largest economy and one of the most sophisticated and esteemed central banks. If America fails to pass some fix, the market will correct itself regardless, and everyone will remember America wasn't needed. If America passes a bill, the market will adjust and everyone will remember the action of the US government, and any actions the market could have taken in absence of American leadership will remain unknowns. The psychological effect is enormous.

The psychological effects of average Americans saying f you to wall street and politicians will be big too.

We may have a case of a bailout too big to succeed.

 

[g8wayrebel]

It's not that we don't understand the need for it , but that we don't want to reward the greedy whores who caused it.
I'll be all for it when I see a couple thousand indictments under the RICO statutes.
While they're at it , they need to get some for Enron , World Com , Tyco , Arthur Anderson and all the others who have bilked the public out of their 401k's.
We've had enough.
They make millions , defraud us of our retirements then go away with the money.
That should be the first source for the bailout is taking back the money those swindlers have defrauded us of.
Secondly is imposing reasonable pay limits on CEO's and all managing employees of publicly held companies.
Last but not least , take away the golden egg all public officials have for retirement and permanent health care and put them in the same system they are in charge of policing.

OK , now where are we , about 500 billion to go? Maybe only 300??

Take it from the criminals first , then ask the taxpayers if you still need help.

Skoorb ,
Well said , but we elect the Congress and Senate to represent us and that rarely ever happens.
Why are we to believe they are going to do it now?
No one who should know what the outcome will be does , so who do you trust?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Well this isn't a Democracy, but a Republic, for good reason.

It's only a democracy when it is used for a nifty catchphrase.

Like "Leaders of Democracy in the world" or "The best democracy" or "Spreaders of great and free democracy"

"Spreaders of Republics" doesn't sound as warm and fuzzy.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

What we need to do is to increase taxes on the rich to pay for the bailout. In the meantime the federal government should take ownership of any companies that get bailed out and the assets of the corrupt CEOs who put those companies in such dire straits should be confiscated to help pay for the bailout.

 

[Insomniator]

The only media elite that I have not seen a terrible doomsday oh noes type of response from is Fox News, which obviously about as conservative as it gets.

The rest of the outlets are all but assuring Doomsday for the the economy, in a very condescending tone.

Personally I see the failure as an example of congress actually working! No matter how much BS certain politicians, economists and the media spit out, enough voters saw through it.

What exactly will be said when the market actually survives and is in a better, less artificial and corrupted state? THAT IT ACTUALLY WORKS?!?!

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

What we need to do is to increase taxes on the rich to pay for the bailout. In the meantime the federal government should take ownership of any companies that get bailed out and the assets of the corrupt CEOs who put those companies in such dire straits should be confiscated to help pay for the bailout.

I agree comrade

 

[Insomniator]

What do you define as the rich?

 

[Painman]

There's a saying, it goes something like:

"If you owe the bank 10 grand and can't pay, you're in trouble. If you owe the bank 10 million and can't pay, the bank is in trouble."

Wall St. screwed the pooch, and needs an infusion of cash. OK. Let them borrow vs. the treasury, and pay it back with interest - to ME - the taxpayer.

If the free marketeers have suddenly found religion with their Inner Socialists, let it come full circle. I own the fucking Fed. Pay me for services rendered. No free lunch!

 

[1prophet]

For many years now the common person has been brainwashed into being good little consumers, buying things they don't need with money they don't have enticed by their own hidden lusts using the methods pioneered by corporate psychologists like Edward Bernays.

You too can have a house, suv, boat etc. like your neighbor just sign on the dotted line, easy credit will help you get those things you deserve.

The American dream owning a home is a right, don't worry about the price or how you can pay for it, your house will always go up in value and you can borrow against the equity to buy the things you want.


Those same techniques have been used in order to get the masses to vote a certain way while telling them it is their right and choice to vote the way they want because the candidates work for them and must listen to them or face the voters wrath come the next election.


It's all fun and games when the economy is good and credit is easy, then the gravy train derails, foreclosures rise, bankruptcies increase, credit becomes hard to get, party's over.

So what do we do, we browbeat them calling them irresponsible, stupid, ignorant for trying to live beyond their means.

When they complain about the economy we call them a nation of whiners like Phil Grahm did. Preach personal responsibility and how others shouldn't have to suffer because of their stupidity since they chose not to live within their means.

Now the tables are turned and Wall Street is crying out for help because their excesses have caught up to them and some how we expect these common folk a.k.a "nation of whiners" who should take responsibility for their bad financial judgements to suddenly roll over and bailout the irresponsible financial institutions because they are to big to fail and not to complain because it is beyond their understanding and the man knows what is best?

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Well this isn't a Democracy, but a Republic, for good reason.

So you're implying the average person isn't sophisticated enough to understand the "bailout" will help them? And politicians should vote for it even though their constituents are against it?

Do you also hold that view regarding war?

I can definitely say the average joe is not capable of making this decision. It is highly complex and well above the thought processes and knowledge levels of joe sixpack who barely knows what APR on a credit card is. They caught up in the idea that it's more of their "hard earned taxes" and they want "them rich bankers" to fail. Many simply don't understand the bigger picture.

I'm relatively on the fence with it, probably because even the experts are. There is definitely no clear picture here, but my point is that listening to the wishes of people with no damn clue about the economy at all is simply bad policy. It's why a general wouldn't ask somebody on the street on their opinion of how to invade a country and why a physician wouldn't ask the hospital's janitor to help consult on somebody's diagnosis.

What you say is true and I too am on the fence with this bailout. I accept we need some sort of safety net to prevent mass financial meltdown, but what i would prefer to see is the perpetrators lose their shirts as well - the way it was done in Sweden. In simple words, we'll help wall street out with a loan which includes liens on everything they own if they cannot pay back.

 

[Wheezer]

Part of the problem is we are asking a group of one set of crooks to bail out another set of crooks and I think the American people have a problem with that.

The congress has been spending like drunken sailors on leave for a very long time....maybe if they had thier spending under control they would not have to take so much from joe taxpayer to cover their own asses.

How many of them have a personal financial gain if this bail out succeeds?

How many are going to loose their asses if it fails?

everyone has a personal agenda in this thing.

If they can come up with 700 billion to bail out wall street to protect their own portfolios from folding why can't they distribute that money so people can pay off their homes?

If I did not have to make a 1st and 2nd mortgage every month I would put part of the money in the bank onthly and some I would spend both of which would help the economy.

I am sure many people would do the same thing.

If you own several homes too bad....the money should go to pay off your primary home, one per family.

perhaps put a cap on how much each family gets.....if you can afford a 5 million dollar home I highly doubt you are in a financial bind.

If it fails the tax payers pay, if it passes the tax payers pay....so why not directly benefit from it....why shouldn't the tax paying middle class and low income earners get a piece of the pie?

after all it's our money that is paying for this.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Well this isn't a Democracy, but a Republic, for good reason.

So you're implying the average person isn't sophisticated enough to understand the "bailout" will help them? And politicians should vote for it even though their constituents are against it?

I'm not going to try and "imply" anything - I'm going to come out and say it: The average person is as dumb as a brick, and isn't even sophisticated enough to understand the basic structure of our gov't, something they should've been taught in middle school civics class, let alone a complicated financial crisis like this one. The Washington Post published the results of a study a few weeks ago in which only 2/5 of Americans indicated they knew the federal gov't was composed of three branches, and could actually name them. And how do you expect the same collection of dolts who couldn't figure out that the payments on their ARMs and interest-only loans would go up eventually to understand as complicated a crisis as this. A nation of morons has produced the leadership now "leading" us. Oh joy.

 

[Moonbeam]

What happens to a democracy that allows its people to become to stupid to understand the issues while at the same time frustrates their desires for years and years, passing special legislation that helps everybody but them.

If the people are the government then the government better make sure the people are qualified to govern. The haves have been having more and more and the average Joe has been left to drink his beer. The government breaks out in flame and Joe Sixpack runs down to throw on some gasoline. Such is the Will of God. Burn it down is the philosophy of people who are frustrated and pissed. When you don't feel you have anything you have nothing to protect. The haves should have thought about that. A yacht doesn't sail to far in a sea of life rafts.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Well this isn't a Democracy, but a Republic, for good reason.

So you're implying the average person isn't sophisticated enough to understand the "bailout" will help them? And politicians should vote for it even though their constituents are against it?

I'm not going to try and "imply" anything - I'm going to come out and say it: The average person is as dumb as a brick, and isn't even sophisticated enough to understand the basic structure of our gov't, something they should've been taught in middle school civics class, let alone a complicated financial crisis like this one. The Washington Post published the results of a study a few weeks ago in which only 2/5 of Americans indicated they knew the federal gov't was composed of three branches, and could actually name them. And how do you expect the same collection of dolts who couldn't figure out that the payments on their ARMs and interest-only loans would go up eventually to understand as complicated a crisis as this. A nation of morons has produced the leadership now "leading" us. Oh joy.

Of course the elite bankers couldn't understand that people couldn't pay their loans. So the people you worship are even stupid then those you hate.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Well this isn't a Democracy, but a Republic, for good reason.

So you're implying the average person isn't sophisticated enough to understand the "bailout" will help them? And politicians should vote for it even though their constituents are against it?

I'm not going to try and "imply" anything - I'm going to come out and say it: The average person is as dumb as a brick, and isn't even sophisticated enough to understand the basic structure of our gov't, something they should've been taught in middle school civics class, let alone a complicated financial crisis like this one. The Washington Post published the results of a study a few weeks ago in which only 2/5 of Americans indicated they knew the federal gov't was composed of three branches, and could actually name them. And how do you expect the same collection of dolts who couldn't figure out that the payments on their ARMs and interest-only loans would go up eventually to understand as complicated a crisis as this. A nation of morons has produced the leadership now "leading" us. Oh joy.

Of course the elite bankers couldn't understand that people couldn't pay their loans. So the people you worship are even stupid then those you hate.

And how stupid are you to assume I "worship" "elite bankers" who couldn't see that subprime loans would eventually go bust?

I don't "hate" the average person; I merely dislike the direction we as a populace have taken the country. We overvalue short-term goals (tax cuts! more gov't benefits!) and completely disregard long-term stability (staggering national debt?!? who cares?!? give me more gov't freebies!!). Not exactly a recipe for long-term prosperity.