"Just 7% Favor Fed Bailout for Financial Firms"

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: glugglug
Originally posted by: Skoorb
If we let them fail what do you think will happen to the economy? Honestly answer this and tell me if you think 2K/person is cheaper than 30% unemployment(The last time the banks failed).
If you or anybody could make that argument convincingly, then it would be an easy answer, wouldn't it? There is no assurance that not spending the money would result in economic catastrophe, just as there is no assurance that spending it will avert it.

I can offer you an assurance opposing 1 of the 2 above.

Would not spending the money result in economic catastrophe? Probably.

Will spending the money avert it? I can assure you it will not. In fact, it will ENSURE economic catastrophe. Really it goes beyond economic catastrophe. It ensures the end of the U.S. as a sovereign entity, and a return to the barter system.

So how many beans did you get for your brain?

 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
An little extra tax burden of bread lines...Hmmm...

I dont like the bailout but I fear the alternative even more. But really, if you go with just the 700 billion we spend that much EVERY YEAR on social programs.

I never hear anyone bitch about our beloved social programs do I? So whats the problem...
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Specop 007
An little extra tax burden of bread lines...Hmmm...

I dont like the bailout but I fear the alternative even more. But really, if you go with just the 700 billion we spend that much EVERY YEAR on social programs.

I never hear anyone bitch about our beloved social programs do I? So whats the problem...

You're telling me you don't see the difference between social programs and huge monetary outlays to private corporations to compensate them for awful business decisions?
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Specop 007
An little extra tax burden of bread lines...Hmmm...

I dont like the bailout but I fear the alternative even more. But really, if you go with just the 700 billion we spend that much EVERY YEAR on social programs.

I never hear anyone bitch about our beloved social programs do I? So whats the problem...

You're telling me you don't see the difference between social programs and huge monetary outlays to private corporations to compensate them for awful business decisions?

In the big picture no.

One helps worthless people, the other helps worthless corporations. The numbers are about the same, the difference is the bailout is a one time thing and with social programs we spend 700 billion EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

If your telling me a one time bailout of 700 billion is some horrible crime and a yearly payout of 700 billion for social programs is ok I think perhaps you should take some very basic accounting classes.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: glugglug
Originally posted by: Skoorb
If we let them fail what do you think will happen to the economy? Honestly answer this and tell me if you think 2K/person is cheaper than 30% unemployment(The last time the banks failed).
If you or anybody could make that argument convincingly, then it would be an easy answer, wouldn't it? There is no assurance that not spending the money would result in economic catastrophe, just as there is no assurance that spending it will avert it.

I can offer you an assurance opposing 1 of the 2 above.

Would not spending the money result in economic catastrophe? Probably.

Will spending the money avert it? I can assure you it will not. In fact, it will ENSURE economic catastrophe. Really it goes beyond economic catastrophe. It ensures the end of the U.S. as a sovereign entity, and a return to the barter system.

rofl. Seriously, you guys would be funny if you weren't so damn sad. Honestly, go back to school.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Specop 007
An little extra tax burden of bread lines...Hmmm...

I dont like the bailout but I fear the alternative even more. But really, if you go with just the 700 billion we spend that much EVERY YEAR on social programs.

I never hear anyone bitch about our beloved social programs do I? So whats the problem...

You're telling me you don't see the difference between social programs and huge monetary outlays to private corporations to compensate them for awful business decisions?

In the big picture no.

One helps worthless people, the other helps worthless corporations. The numbers are about the same, the difference is the bailout is a one time thing and with social programs we spend 700 billion EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

If your telling me a one time bailout of 700 billion is some horrible crime and a yearly payout of 700 billion for social programs is ok I think perhaps you should take some very basic accounting classes.

Yet again, you say something stupid. Social programs such as Social Security and Medicare are programs that we have all paid into during our lives and can all draw from later in life. You must be referring to these two programs as they account for the vast majority of social program spending. Strange that you would consider people over 65 as 'worthless'. Of course what probably really happened is that in your brain you thought "SOCIAL PROGRAMS = WELFARE" and typed out your dumb post without ever checking to see if that was true or not.

So really you're attempting to say that the government honoring the obligations it has to people who have paid into these systems is as bad as giving $700 billion dollars away to private corporations who did no such thing. Will you use your brain for just a second for once?
 

nergee

Senior member
Jan 25, 2000
843
0
0
Don't know about you guys, but I've had a good life up till now.
I feel bad for the kids whose nation has been stolen and their futures mortgaged for all time........
 

Special K

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2000
7,098
0
76
Even if this bailout averts a crisis, I think it is just setting a precedent for future events. Regulations will be passed to prevent another housing bubble/mortgage meltdown, but by that time Wall Street will have already moved on to the next loophole to exploit, which will lead to another financial crisis in ~10 years. This will require yet another bailout. Greed is eternal, and the banks and hedge funds will always be one step ahead of the regulators. Even now there are probably teams at the remaining banks and hedge funds who are working to find the next loophole to exploit.

 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
The general public has absolutely no place opining on this matter. It's far too complex for them, and no I'm not kidding.

No kidding. There are some times I think people need to remember that live in a representative democracy for a reason, the opinion of the average Joe Sixpack on issues like this is worth pretty much nothing.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Special K
Even if this bailout averts a crisis, I think it is just setting a precedent for future events. Regulations will be passed to prevent another housing bubble/mortgage meltdown, but by that time Wall Street will have already moved on to the next loophole to exploit, which will lead to another financial crisis in ~10 years. This will require yet another bailout. Greed is eternal, and the banks and hedge funds will always be one step ahead of the regulators. Even now there are probably teams at the remaining banks and hedge funds who are working to find the next loophole to exploit.

So what's the solution?
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Specop 007
An little extra tax burden of bread lines...Hmmm...

I dont like the bailout but I fear the alternative even more. But really, if you go with just the 700 billion we spend that much EVERY YEAR on social programs.

I never hear anyone bitch about our beloved social programs do I? So whats the problem...

You're telling me you don't see the difference between social programs and huge monetary outlays to private corporations to compensate them for awful business decisions?

In the big picture no.

One helps worthless people, the other helps worthless corporations. The numbers are about the same, the difference is the bailout is a one time thing and with social programs we spend 700 billion EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

If your telling me a one time bailout of 700 billion is some horrible crime and a yearly payout of 700 billion for social programs is ok I think perhaps you should take some very basic accounting classes.

Yet again, you say something stupid. Social programs such as Social Security and Medicare are programs that we have all paid into during our lives and can all draw from later in life. You must be referring to these two programs as they account for the vast majority of social program spending. Strange that you would consider people over 65 as 'worthless'. Of course what probably really happened is that in your brain you thought "SOCIAL PROGRAMS = WELFARE" and typed out your dumb post without ever checking to see if that was true or not.

So really you're attempting to say that the government honoring the obligations it has to people who have paid into these systems is as bad as giving $700 billion dollars away to private corporations who did no such thing. Will you use your brain for just a second for once?

SHENS SHENS SHENS x 11ty GAZILLION
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Yet again, you say something stupid. Social programs such as Social Security and Medicare are programs that we have all paid into during our lives and can all draw from later in life. You must be referring to these two programs as they account for the vast majority of social program spending. Strange that you would consider people over 65 as 'worthless'. Of course what probably really happened is that in your brain you thought "SOCIAL PROGRAMS = WELFARE" and typed out your dumb post without ever checking to see if that was true or not.

So really you're attempting to say that the government honoring the obligations it has to people who have paid into these systems is as bad as giving $700 billion dollars away to private corporations who did no such thing. Will you use your brain for just a second for once?

SHENS SHENS SHENS x 11ty GAZILLION

Are you trying to pull that whole "social security will be gone" thing? Blah, blah, no it won't.

Even if by some insane chance it were, Specop was referring to the current situation in which everyone did pay in and is currently getting benefits and comparing it to corporate welfare for wall street, so your worthless post didn't even address the substance of mine.

Shocking that JS80 would make a worthless post, I know.
 

Special K

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2000
7,098
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Special K
Even if this bailout averts a crisis, I think it is just setting a precedent for future events. Regulations will be passed to prevent another housing bubble/mortgage meltdown, but by that time Wall Street will have already moved on to the next loophole to exploit, which will lead to another financial crisis in ~10 years. This will require yet another bailout. Greed is eternal, and the banks and hedge funds will always be one step ahead of the regulators. Even now there are probably teams at the remaining banks and hedge funds who are working to find the next loophole to exploit.

So what's the solution?

I don't think there is any long-lasting one. I doubt anything done about the current crisis can possibly anticipate the fallout from the next inevitable bubble/meltdown, which will likely be based on some completely different asset and/or loophole.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Yet again, you say something stupid. Social programs such as Social Security and Medicare are programs that we have all paid into during our lives and can all draw from later in life. You must be referring to these two programs as they account for the vast majority of social program spending. Strange that you would consider people over 65 as 'worthless'. Of course what probably really happened is that in your brain you thought "SOCIAL PROGRAMS = WELFARE" and typed out your dumb post without ever checking to see if that was true or not.

So really you're attempting to say that the government honoring the obligations it has to people who have paid into these systems is as bad as giving $700 billion dollars away to private corporations who did no such thing. Will you use your brain for just a second for once?

SHENS SHENS SHENS x 11ty GAZILLION

Are you trying to pull that whole "social security will be gone" thing? Blah, blah, no it won't.

Even if by some insane chance it were, Specop was referring to the current situation in which everyone did pay in and is currently getting benefits and comparing it to corporate welfare for wall street, so your worthless post didn't even address the substance of mine.

Shocking that JS80 would make a worthless post, I know.

Sad thing is my worthless posts take a minute and a few sentences but your worthless posts take hours and paragraphs.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Are you trying to pull that whole "social security will be gone" thing? Blah, blah, no it won't.

Even if by some insane chance it were, Specop was referring to the current situation in which everyone did pay in and is currently getting benefits and comparing it to corporate welfare for wall street, so your worthless post didn't even address the substance of mine.

Shocking that JS80 would make a worthless post, I know.

Sad thing is my worthless posts take a minute and a few sentences but your worthless posts take hours and paragraphs.

Well, I'm glad that even you admit your posts are worthless. I'm not too concerned what you think about mine considering your reputation.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Yet again, you say something stupid. Social programs such as Social Security and Medicare are programs that we have all paid into during our lives and can all draw from later in life. You must be referring to these two programs as they account for the vast majority of social program spending. Strange that you would consider people over 65 as 'worthless'. Of course what probably really happened is that in your brain you thought "SOCIAL PROGRAMS = WELFARE" and typed out your dumb post without ever checking to see if that was true or not.

So really you're attempting to say that the government honoring the obligations it has to people who have paid into these systems is as bad as giving $700 billion dollars away to private corporations who did no such thing. Will you use your brain for just a second for once?

SHENS SHENS SHENS x 11ty GAZILLION

Are you trying to pull that whole "social security will be gone" thing? Blah, blah, no it won't.

Even if by some insane chance it were, Specop was referring to the current situation in which everyone did pay in and is currently getting benefits and comparing it to corporate welfare for wall street, so your worthless post didn't even address the substance of mine.

Shocking that JS80 would make a worthless post, I know.

Sad thing is my worthless posts take a minute and a few sentences but your worthless posts take hours and paragraphs.

No no, you're mistaken. Your posts are worthless no matter how much time you put in.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Special K
Even if this bailout averts a crisis, I think it is just setting a precedent for future events. Regulations will be passed to prevent another housing bubble/mortgage meltdown, but by that time Wall Street will have already moved on to the next loophole to exploit, which will lead to another financial crisis in ~10 years. This will require yet another bailout. Greed is eternal, and the banks and hedge funds will always be one step ahead of the regulators. Even now there are probably teams at the remaining banks and hedge funds who are working to find the next loophole to exploit.

So what's the solution?

Go jump off a cliff. Half way down see if you have a solution.

The bailout is not a solution, band-aid, or anything else. It is pissing into the wind.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Probably a similar number can't see that Obama is our only hope.

The founding fathers took government out of the direct hands of the people for this very reason. Ordinary people, good at deciding what to have for breakfast for themselves, and what color pair of pants they'd like to wear, haven't the faintest idea what is good for them, much less do with any precision, a complicated economic analysis of the US economy.

Of course there are always among the population a percentage of folk who like to fantasize they actually can do these things and that their conclusions, rather than the opinions of elite and experienced thinkers, should be the rule of the day, and so we, who frequent forums, for example, get to hear them squeak about how unjust everything is and how nobody ever listens to them. They like to buttress this sentiment by usurping public opinion as if they represented in and it had some holy, mystical, and innate wisdom rather than the collective chicken scratch of hens.

You and your "elite and experienced thinkers" can take a flying leap. The power should belong to the people, ALL OF THEM. We simply loan it to the assholes in office but at the end of the day WE should always decide. Perhaps we have forgotten that we hold the power but I'll be damned if it will be taken away so that the "elite" can decide for us.
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,888
0
0
Originally posted by: Darwin333
You and your "elite and experienced thinkers" can take a flying leap. The power should belong to the people, ALL OF THEM. We simply loan it to the assholes in office but at the end of the day WE should always decide. Perhaps we have forgotten that we hold the power but I'll be damned if it will be taken away so that the "elite" can decide for us.

There's a demotivational poster for this, I'm sure of it.. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

Group Think, Mob Rule.. these are the things the founding fathers took a lot of care to protect us from. I'll take the opinions of the Elite and the Experienced over the Many any day.

How can you even compare the two..

Elite/Experienced guy says: Okay, I have studied this all my adult life and come to the conclusion that...
Unruly mob says: Fuck you, we've known about this situation all of two minutes and have decided to go with what this good looking spokesperson says!
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,750
2,525
126
A whole lot more confidence and support of the proposed bailout would be generated by at least setting forth the outlines of a remedy. Right now the plan literally is nothing more than throwing cash at a problem.

 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,630
82
91
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: BigDH01

700B is not a "fix," it is a band-aid. One that may or may not actually work.

We can certainly argue whether this dilemma is false. I don't assume that regulations put in place after this mess will

A) address every contingency and close all loop holes

B) remain in place given the corrupt nature of our gov't

Of course, drastic new regulation changes the nature of the game. It likely means less credit, less spending, lower returns, and a lower quality of life for the rest of us.

Regardless, I believe this bill is only the "band-aid" and doesn't address any new regulations or controls. Wall St is clamoring for a bail out right now but how are they going to feel after they get their money? Are they going to ask for the government to restrict their activities? Who's really running the show on Capitol Hill?

I prefer to try the band aid before cutting off the entire arm.

Some of those changes are already happening on their own. Goldman and Morgan are to become holding companies which are subject to much more regulation and stricter leverage limitations. Some of the other I banks with probably follow suit.

The end of easy access to cheap cash will humble the hedge funds (the ones that make it) into less aggressive entities.

With the election looming and both candidates exploiting the public's unhappiness about this I think more regulation will be coming down the pipe in the relatively near future.

Band-aids work when you're dealing with a cut. In this case, I believe the condition is more closely related to gangrene. The disease that infects this nation is of far greater magnitude than the failure of investment banks or creditor institutions. This is merely the tip of the iceberg. This country, from the top down, is addicted to debt. The citizens, companies, institutions, and government are up to their eyeballs in it. This is the cancer. Maybe cutting off the arm will show real resolve to stop the spread here and now. Maybe it will return us to fiscal and monetary responsibility. Maybe people will look to the future and start to actually address our quickly approaching financial liabilities. Maybe something will actually get done.

Look, I'm going to take a very unpopular stance on this. It seems that this bailout is receiving support because it will prolong the situation letting positions slowly unwind. My question is: do we really want this to go slowly? Do we really want to avoid a depression? Perhaps it is due to my age or inexperience in life, but I see opportunity in the ashes of a quick unwind. My whole life I've been frustrated by the "average Joe." I can have perfectly reasonable conversations with nearly everyone I meet and I sense a lot of anger and mistrust of top executives and politicians. Despite this, most people seem far more interested in the score of the Cowboys Packers game than they do in enacting social change.

Just look at these forums. You see a lot of mudslinging to the left and right yet I feel that the wisest of us realize that the problem does not lie in Republican or Democrat but in every politician. It lies with people who are so obsessed with being on the right side that they can't see the game for what it is. And why most people are chasing their tales, the rich get richer, politicians have sold out to corporations, wars are being raged around the world for God knows what, and our future was sold to put Bob and Jane American in a home they never had a chance of affording. As long as people can go home, watch TV, drink a beer, and repeat this the next day, nothing will change.

The problems about to face humanity are simply too great, complicated, and many for people to not be concerned. In this light, I can't understand why so many people favor a bailout that will inevitably result in "more status quo."

The Great Depression was obviously named that for a reason. A lot of people hurt and hurt badly. However, many social changes came about because of this event. I have confidence that a drastic change in the status quo will awaken people to their social and civic responsibilities. It may make people open their eyes and demand control of their future and their country. People might start to demand social justice and realize that governments should be functional and aid citizenry. Although a Utopian society is probably never achievable, the path is noble and progress can always be made.

Of course, I'm an idealist. I think a rapid change can be a good thing even if it leads to short term pain. I think that humanity can learn from its mistakes and create something better. I believe people will help each other and that it will bring us together for a greater cause (not war related). We can build more successful institutions from the ashes of the failed.

However, I may be completely wrong and it will be a Rome-like collapse leading to another Dark Age and centuries of local warfare. Now I'm talking like a realist.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Hehehehe. What is good enough for the Iraqi plebeians is good enough for the US plebeians. The free market Maestros write the rules and you get to eat their shit. And there is nothing you can do about it... They are above and outside the law.

 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: Darwin333
You and your "elite and experienced thinkers" can take a flying leap. The power should belong to the people, ALL OF THEM. We simply loan it to the assholes in office but at the end of the day WE should always decide. Perhaps we have forgotten that we hold the power but I'll be damned if it will be taken away so that the "elite" can decide for us.

There's a demotivational poster for this, I'm sure of it.. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

Group Think, Mob Rule.. these are the things the founding fathers took a lot of care to protect us from. I'll take the opinions of the Elite and the Experienced over the Many any day.

How can you even compare the two..

Elite/Experienced guy says: Okay, I have studied this all my adult life and come to the conclusion that...
Unruly mob says: Fuck you, we've known about this situation all of two minutes and have decided to go with what this good looking spokesperson says!

You do realize of course that it's the elite and experience who are cashing in on this fiasco and leaving you and I to pay the bill, right?

A serial rapist is experienced at sex, but I don't recommend you take his advice when it comes to dating.