House passes the $700B+ bailout deal (updated)

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre
Regardless what anyone thinks about the necessity of the bailout itself, we should all be thundering mad about the way it was passed. Yes, I am talking about the 400+ pages of pork and crap.

"Don't like the bill? Then what irrelevant crap would you like to add to it that would change your mind?"

It has nothing to do with R's or D's. This is the way our government works, and what we witnessed today is absolutely nothing new. And it's fucking disgusting.

Why? Don't you think that disgust is an evolutionary adaptation to keep you from eating maggoty meat and rotten bananas? How did such a primitive reaction get put on the government? Are you opposed to a representative democracy and want to substitute your notion of disgust for that of others?

I don't think I need anyone to tell me not to eat "maggoty meat and rotten bananas." When I bought my last car, I didn't thank the government for forcing Honda to put seat belts in it either. I would never support a pure democracy, but I would love to see the day we go back to being a Constitutional Republic, especially one that follows the actual Constitution.

I asked you about a representative democracy, not a pure democracy or what you would like to see. I believe a representative government is what we were given by the Constitution. I think you must also mean go back to what you think is the Constitution, since all that is so far has not been successfully challenged by the Supreme Court, right?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Let's say that you live in a country where kidnapping becomes a growing 'industry'.

At some point, the kidnappers are holding a thousand hostages for a combined ransom of a billion dollars.

The government comes out sand says that the hostage problem has caused so much disruption in society that there's a $10B impact from it, and the decline in tourism because of the kidnapping costs another $5B. They say it's clear the economy cannot afford the problem to continue, and the solution is to spend the $1B in taxpayer money to pay the ransoms and free the thousand hostages. Then all can return to normal.

The opposition suggests an alternative: spending $2B to go after the hostage takers, even though sadly it's estimated many of the hostages will be killed in the operation.

Now, do you pay the ransoms, and leave the kidnapping industry freshly funded with new taxpayer money to pick up where they left off, or pay the price of removing the infrastructure of the industry that got the problem so bad to begin with, even though it has a high price?

"But Craig234, the Wall Street industry provides essential financial services, unlike the hostage takers".

Yes, but no one's talking about not having a financial industry - rather just the pain of rebuilding it, better, instead of funding the Treasury Secretary's firm and other cronies.

You pay the ransom and you develop methods to properly regulate the kidnapping industry so that it doesn't happen again. That way, no one gets killed now or later.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This thread may one day tell us much about who had any sense, but of course by then all the rationalizations will have set in and all the fools who claimed this and that as fact will be able to show how they were actually right when time proved them wrong. There will be all these buts and ifs and contingencies and would haves and could be piled up enough to reach outer space.

By the time enough years have passed for us to assess such a thing, so much other crap will have happened that acts as an outside influence that people will still be arguing about whether it was a good or bad decision endlessly. Isn't this how it always works?

I think it's quite clear that a whole bunch of folk here are predicting the end and if in a few years we're arguing it will mean they were wrong, no?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

You pay the ransom and you develop methods to properly regulate the kidnapping industry so that it doesn't happen again. That way, no one gets killed now or later.

Ya, hold your breath for the 'reform'. Let me know how that goes.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Are you opposed to a representative democracy and want to substitute your notion of disgust for that of others?

Anyone who supported that bill and pushed to get it passed stands against democracy. The people said no, our rulers said yes. To hell with them.

Maybe not here, but sometimes that's a good thing. I wonder how far I could get running on a platform of no only no new taxes, but no taxes at all! The same level of services, but no costs to anyone! Might be popular, but it's surely not wise.

 

[waggy]

wow. now CA wants a 7billion "loan" that they might payback.

great.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This thread may one day tell us much about who had any sense, but of course by then all the rationalizations will have set in and all the fools who claimed this and that as fact will be able to show how they were actually right when time proved them wrong. There will be all these buts and ifs and contingencies and would haves and could be piled up enough to reach outer space.

By the time enough years have passed for us to assess such a thing, so much other crap will have happened that acts as an outside influence that people will still be arguing about whether it was a good or bad decision endlessly. Isn't this how it always works?

I think it's quite clear that a whole bunch of folk here are predicting the end and if in a few years we're arguing it will mean they were wrong, no?

Nobody has predicted that failing to pass it will be the end of the world.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Xavier434

You pay the ransom and you develop methods to properly regulate the kidnapping industry so that it doesn't happen again. That way, no one gets killed now or later.

Ya, hold your breath for the 'reform'. Let me know how that goes.

Rather than act like such a cynic, why don't you start publicly encouraging it to happen? We all know there are people in Washington which play towards the people for better or for worse in order to ensure their jobs. Encourage the idea that reforming the regs properly is a fine way to get reelected. With enough support publicly displayed in the right way, it can happen. Is it a guarantee? Of course not, but what else are you going to do which holds a shred of potential productivity at this point? Bitch about what we could have and should have done?

 

[jpeyton]

Now it's time for the market correction to happen. I figure we hit 9,500 before the bleeding stops. Down to 10,300 right now.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre
Regardless what anyone thinks about the necessity of the bailout itself, we should all be thundering mad about the way it was passed. Yes, I am talking about the 400+ pages of pork and crap.

"Don't like the bill? Then what irrelevant crap would you like to add to it that would change your mind?"

It has nothing to do with R's or D's. This is the way our government works, and what we witnessed today is absolutely nothing new. And it's fucking disgusting.

Why? Don't you think that disgust is an evolutionary adaptation to keep you from eating maggoty meat and rotten bananas? How did such a primitive reaction get put on the government? Are you opposed to a representative democracy and want to substitute your notion of disgust for that of others?

I don't think I need anyone to tell me not to eat "maggoty meat and rotten bananas." When I bought my last car, I didn't thank the government for forcing Honda to put seat belts in it either. I would never support a pure democracy, but I would love to see the day we go back to being a Constitutional Republic, especially one that follows the actual Constitution.

I asked you about a representative democracy, not a pure democracy or what you would like to see. I believe a representative government is what we were given by the Constitution. I think you must also mean go back to what you think is the Constitution, since all that is so far has not been successfully challenged by the Supreme Court, right?

Either I am not understanding what you are asking, or you need to go look up the difference between a democracy and a Republic.

 

[Oyeve]

So are we a Socialist country now? Or just on our way.

 

[ranmaniac]

:music:Babylon system is the vampire, yea! (vampire)
Suckin' the children day by day, yeah!
Me say: de Babylon system is the vampire, falling empire,
Suckin' the blood of the sufferers, yea-ea-ea-ea-e-ah!
Building church and university, wo-o-ooh, yeah! -
Deceiving the people continually, yea-ea!
Me say them graduatin' thieves and murderers;
Look out now: they suckin' the blood of the sufferers (sufferers).
Yea-ea-ea! (sufferers) :music:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Craig234
Let's say that you live in a country where kidnapping becomes a growing 'industry'.

At some point, the kidnappers are holding a thousand hostages for a combined ransom of a billion dollars.

The government comes out sand says that the hostage problem has caused so much disruption in society that there's a $10B impact from it, and the decline in tourism because of the kidnapping costs another $5B. They say it's clear the economy cannot afford the problem to continue, and the solution is to spend the $1B in taxpayer money to pay the ransoms and free the thousand hostages. Then all can return to normal.

The opposition suggests an alternative: spending $2B to go after the hostage takers, even though sadly it's estimated many of the hostages will be killed in the operation.

Now, do you pay the ransoms, and leave the kidnapping industry freshly funded with new taxpayer money to pick up where they left off, or pay the price of removing the infrastructure of the industry that got the problem so bad to begin with, even though it has a high price?

"But Craig234, the Wall Street industry provides essential financial services, unlike the hostage takers".

Yes, but no one's talking about not having a financial industry - rather just the pain of rebuilding it, better, instead of funding the Treasury Secretary's firm and other cronies.

You pay the ransom and you develop methods to properly regulate the kidnapping industry so that it doesn't happen again. That way, no one gets killed now or later.

Wow. Congress is apparently as stupid as you are.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This thread may one day tell us much about who had any sense, but of course by then all the rationalizations will have set in and all the fools who claimed this and that as fact will be able to show how they were actually right when time proved them wrong. There will be all these buts and ifs and contingencies and would haves and could be piled up enough to reach outer space.

By the time enough years have passed for us to assess such a thing, so much other crap will have happened that acts as an outside influence that people will still be arguing about whether it was a good or bad decision endlessly. Isn't this how it always works?

I think it's quite clear that a whole bunch of folk here are predicting the end and if in a few years we're arguing it will mean they were wrong, no?

Nobody has predicted that failing to pass it will be the end of the world.

Actually, LegendKiller and Evan Lieb did predict exactly that.

 

[Cattlegod]

everyone bought a bunch of stock before the vote in anticipation that it would be passed. as soon as it passed, they all assumed it would shoot up and they all sold after it passed. the problem was they all thought they were the only ones with that idea.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Xavier434

You pay the ransom and you develop methods to properly regulate the kidnapping industry so that it doesn't happen again. That way, no one gets killed now or later.

Ya, hold your breath for the 'reform'. Let me know how that goes.

Rather than act like such a cynic, why don't you start publicly encouraging it to happen? We all know there are people in Washington which play towards the people for better or for worse in order to ensure their jobs. Encourage the idea that reforming the regs properly is a fine way to get reelected. With enough support publicly displayed in the right way, it can happen. Is it a guarantee? Of course not, but what else are you going to do which holds a shred of potential productivity at this point? Bitch about what we could have and should have done?

I don't think my post was cynical. I think that the reform won't happen because of the level of corruption currently, and have long advocated how I think we should fix that.

FWIW, I'm sort an anti-cynic.

I guess there's a line between 'correcting naivete' and 'cynicism' that may lie in the eye of the beholder.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Craig234
Let's say that you live in a country where kidnapping becomes a growing 'industry'.

At some point, the kidnappers are holding a thousand hostages for a combined ransom of a billion dollars.

The government comes out sand says that the hostage problem has caused so much disruption in society that there's a $10B impact from it, and the decline in tourism because of the kidnapping costs another $5B. They say it's clear the economy cannot afford the problem to continue, and the solution is to spend the $1B in taxpayer money to pay the ransoms and free the thousand hostages. Then all can return to normal.

The opposition suggests an alternative: spending $2B to go after the hostage takers, even though sadly it's estimated many of the hostages will be killed in the operation.

Now, do you pay the ransoms, and leave the kidnapping industry freshly funded with new taxpayer money to pick up where they left off, or pay the price of removing the infrastructure of the industry that got the problem so bad to begin with, even though it has a high price?

"But Craig234, the Wall Street industry provides essential financial services, unlike the hostage takers".

Yes, but no one's talking about not having a financial industry - rather just the pain of rebuilding it, better, instead of funding the Treasury Secretary's firm and other cronies.

You pay the ransom and you develop methods to properly regulate the kidnapping industry so that it doesn't happen again. That way, no one gets killed now or later.

The real problem is that the kidnappers are splitting the ransom money with the people telling us we need to capitulate. And you think the benefactors of our "donation" are going to regulate themselves so they don't steal our money in the future? It's like taking candy from a baby.

 

[Balt]

Even with the bailout the market is still going to be bearish with the consensus that a serious recession and job loss is forthcoming.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Craig234
Let's say that you live in a country where kidnapping becomes a growing 'industry'.

At some point, the kidnappers are holding a thousand hostages for a combined ransom of a billion dollars.

The government comes out sand says that the hostage problem has caused so much disruption in society that there's a $10B impact from it, and the decline in tourism because of the kidnapping costs another $5B. They say it's clear the economy cannot afford the problem to continue, and the solution is to spend the $1B in taxpayer money to pay the ransoms and free the thousand hostages. Then all can return to normal.

The opposition suggests an alternative: spending $2B to go after the hostage takers, even though sadly it's estimated many of the hostages will be killed in the operation.

Now, do you pay the ransoms, and leave the kidnapping industry freshly funded with new taxpayer money to pick up where they left off, or pay the price of removing the infrastructure of the industry that got the problem so bad to begin with, even though it has a high price?

"But Craig234, the Wall Street industry provides essential financial services, unlike the hostage takers".

Yes, but no one's talking about not having a financial industry - rather just the pain of rebuilding it, better, instead of funding the Treasury Secretary's firm and other cronies.

You pay the ransom and you develop methods to properly regulate the kidnapping industry so that it doesn't happen again. That way, no one gets killed now or later.

The real problem is that the kidnappers are splitting the ransom money with the people telling us we need to capitulate. And you think the benefactors of our "donation" are going to regulate themselves so they don't steal our money in the future? It's like taking candy from a baby.

:thumbsup:

At least some people get it.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Xavier434

You pay the ransom and you develop methods to properly regulate the kidnapping industry so that it doesn't happen again. That way, no one gets killed now or later.

Ya, hold your breath for the 'reform'. Let me know how that goes.

Rather than act like such a cynic, why don't you start publicly encouraging it to happen? We all know there are people in Washington which play towards the people for better or for worse in order to ensure their jobs. Encourage the idea that reforming the regs properly is a fine way to get reelected. With enough support publicly displayed in the right way, it can happen. Is it a guarantee? Of course not, but what else are you going to do which holds a shred of potential productivity at this point? Bitch about what we could have and should have done?

Yeah, Congress really bowed to our pressure on the bailout. They voted against it until the deal was "sweetened."

What's the point in caring about politics anymore? It's quite obvious that money shouts far louder than us peasants ever could. They should all be sent to jail for corruption. How does one get them prosecuted?

 

[manowar821]

Criminal pig-dogs. That's all I can say without getting perma-banned.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BigDH01
It's like taking candy from a baby.

They should replace that saying with "like taking money from a taxpayer."

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Criminal pig-dogs. That's all I can say without getting perma-banned.

You are allowed to use the word, "douchebag" here.

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: BigDH01
The bailout isn't socialism. The government didn't take control or collective ownership of the banks, they are purchasing the banks' crappy assets. It certainly isn't helping in the creation of an egalitarian society.

Socialism

What you saw today was legal robbery. Corrupt capitalism.

I would wager that six months from now we'll see no new regulations with regards to financial institutions, corporate pay, lending practices, and sure as hell not campaign/lobbyist donations. Our government is the best purchase business has ever made. The gift that keeps on giving.

You might be able to convince me that it is not socialism, but I don't see how the bailout portion of this mess was the corrupt part. There has certainly been a lot of corruption which lead to this mess, but how exactly is the bailout corrupt? They created a bill which passed and is going to allow Americans to spend again which is exactly what we need.

The corrupt part is it allows greedy bankers who should have been out of jobs and bankrupt to remain in business and keep making millions if not billions of dollars.

I think everyone agrees that it sucks and is not fair, but the alternative isn't exactly a basket of fruit either. No one liked the choices, but we had to choose and I personally think we made the better choice.

It still doesn't make it any better.

If you ask me there should be many more stipulations for a company to take advantage of this bail-out. The CEO and top executives should be out of jobs for one. These people caused the problem even when they were warned of the problems by employees and outside analysts. They ran the companies into the ground because of greed, so they personally should not benefit one bit from a bail-out.

They should be out of a job like so many other Americans, and they should never again be allowed to work as an executive for a publicly traded company. They caused the problem, so it only makes sense they should be the first to lose their jobs and any financial gains they might receive from stocks and other forms of compensation.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: BigDH01
The bailout isn't socialism. The government didn't take control or collective ownership of the banks, they are purchasing the banks' crappy assets. It certainly isn't helping in the creation of an egalitarian society.

Socialism

What you saw today was legal robbery. Corrupt capitalism.

I would wager that six months from now we'll see no new regulations with regards to financial institutions, corporate pay, lending practices, and sure as hell not campaign/lobbyist donations. Our government is the best purchase business has ever made. The gift that keeps on giving.

You might be able to convince me that it is not socialism, but I don't see how the bailout portion of this mess was the corrupt part. There has certainly been a lot of corruption which lead to this mess, but how exactly is the bailout corrupt? They created a bill which passed and is going to allow Americans to spend again which is exactly what we need.

The corrupt part is it allows greedy bankers who should have been out of jobs and bankrupt to remain in business and keep making millions if not billions of dollars.

I think everyone agrees that it sucks and is not fair, but the alternative isn't exactly a basket of fruit either. No one liked the choices, but we had to choose and I personally think we made the better choice.

It still doesn't make it any better.

If you ask me there should be many more stipulations for a company to take advantage of this bail-out. The CEO and top executives should be out of jobs for one. These people caused the problem even when they were warned of the problems by employees and outside analysts. They ran the companies into the ground because of greed, so they personally should not benefit one bit from a bail-out.

They should be out of a job like so many other Americans, and they should never again be allowed to work as an executive for a publicly traded company. They caused the problem, so it only makes sense they should be the first to lose their jobs and any financial gains they might receive from stocks and other forms of compensation.

In some societies in the recent past, they would have had the integrity to take their own lives. Nowadays, they'll just take the golden parachute.