PDA

View Full Version : Elections "We do not support government bailouts of private institutions...


Direckshun
09-23-2008, 06:33 PM
...Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself."

- Republican Party Platform (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/23/extra_bonus_quote_of_the_day.html), 2008.

I'm totally sure you guys know what you're talking about.

SNR
09-23-2008, 06:57 PM
Bush is a "special" case.

Direckshun
09-23-2008, 07:22 PM
Bush is a "special" case.

Man, if you care about conservativism, you've GOT pray that he is.

SNR
09-23-2008, 08:27 PM
Man, if you care about conservativism, you've GOT pray that he is.Oh, I meant special kind of special

SBK
09-23-2008, 11:28 PM
I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but there's some kind of fraud going on right in front of our eyes with this thing. Something just isn't right.

And I don't mean bailing out companies. The way it's going down, the amount of money, to whom it's given, and the amount of accountability to both the funds and the reason the funds are wanted. Somebody is committing the crime of the century right under everyone's noses.

Direckshun
09-23-2008, 11:48 PM
I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but there's some kind of fraud going on right in front of our eyes with this thing. Something just isn't right.

And I don't mean bailing out companies. The way it's going down, the amount of money, to whom it's given, and the amount of accountability to both the funds and the reason the funds are wanted. Somebody is committing the crime of the century right under everyone's noses.

I think the crime is legal in this case, if we accept the $700 billion blank check that the administration is asking for. I think you're justified in your nervousness.

SBK
09-23-2008, 11:51 PM
I think the crime is legal in this case, if we accept the $700 billion blank check that the administration is asking for. I think you're justified in your nervousness.

There's some kind of fraud going on, from investment banks turning into commercial banks overnight, to asking for $700B and not giving a timeline of use, a reason, or a gameplan, and desiring no accountability.

There's more to this than we're being told. Hopefully someday it all comes out, and hopefully we don't write that check......

Guru
09-23-2008, 11:52 PM
There's some kind of fraud going on, from investment banks turning into commercial banks overnight, to asking for $700B and not giving a timeline of use, a reason, or a gameplan, and desiring no accountability.

There's more to this than we're being told. Hopefully someday it all comes out, and hopefully we don't write that check......
We damned well shouldn't write that check.

Direckshun
09-23-2008, 11:53 PM
There's some kind of fraud going on, from investment banks turning into commercial banks overnight, to asking for $700B and not giving a timeline of use, a reason, or a gameplan, and desiring no accountability.

There's more to this than we're being told. Hopefully someday it all comes out, and hopefully we don't write that check......

I share your suspicions, to be honest.

I support a partial bailout at a fraction of the administration's asking price, and seeing how things play out before we start bankrolling the rest of the bailout.

SBK
09-23-2008, 11:55 PM
I share your suspicions, to be honest.

I support a partial bailout at a fraction of the administration's asking price, and seeing how things play out before we start bankrolling the rest of the bailout.

I think Chuck Schumer asked about this option in some hearing and was told by the ex Goldman Sachs guy that they may not spend everything right away but needed all the money now.....heard it on Michael Savage tonight, he compared it to a kid gambling away his dad's money.

Direckshun
09-23-2008, 11:57 PM
That's a bizarre answer -- I had not heard that exchange.

Of course they're not going to spend all of it right away. This is a pricetag that should be spread over time, from a few years to a couple decades. There is no reason to pay all of that right now.

I think they're just trying to railroad Congress into giving the administration yet more power than it deserves.

SBK
09-23-2008, 11:59 PM
That's a bizarre answer -- I had not heard that exchange.

Of course they're not going to spend all of it right away. This is a pricetag that should be spread over time, from a few years to a couple decades. There is no reason to pay all of that right now.

I think they're just trying to railroad Congress into giving the administration yet more power than it deserves.

Is it the administration, or is it the Fed? And why do they need 700b today if they're not going to spend it right away? I'm telling you, something doesn't add up......

RINGLEADER
09-24-2008, 12:06 AM
We damned well shouldn't write that check.

If the credit markets collapse, as some much smarter than any of us believe, the costs of this bailout will seem miniscule by comparison. I really hope those people are wrong but it looks like Congress is going to take a pass and see what happens.

SBK
09-24-2008, 01:10 AM
Saw this in a comment on another blog. Dave Ramsey explains how to "bailout" the banks without it costing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. Then says you should call your reps and tell them if they vote for this you're going to donate and vote for whoever they're running against....nice.

http://a1611.g.akamai.net/f/1611/23575/9h/dramsey.download.akamai.com/23575/audio/mp3/mydrs_blog/092308_mark_to_market.mp3

Good theory too, might actually work. Probably would might be the better way to put it.

BucEyedPea
09-24-2008, 07:25 AM
...Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself."

- Republican Party Platform (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/23/extra_bonus_quote_of_the_day.html), 2008.

I'm totally sure you guys know what you're talking about.

Bush is not a conservative. How many have said this here for awhile?
More than a few. I know I have. He's not a populist either. He, as well as Daddy, represent mercantilist economic interests. Hence, the need for wars.

Sully
09-24-2008, 07:42 AM
I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but there's some kind of fraud going on right in front of our eyes with this thing. Something just isn't right.

And I don't mean bailing out companies. The way it's going down, the amount of money, to whom it's given, and the amount of accountability to both the funds and the reason the funds are wanted. Somebody is committing the crime of the century right under everyone's noses.

All I know is if Gene Hackman, Sam Rockwell and Ricky Jay are involved, we're ****ed.

Mr. Kotter
09-24-2008, 09:15 AM
From what I'm seeing, no one is thrilled about the idea of a bail-out....except maybe the Bush administration. Any support I've seen is tepid at best, and only as a "there's not much of a choice here, if we wish to avoid broader and deeper economic hardships."

J Diddy
09-24-2008, 09:58 AM
All I know is if Gene Hackman, Sam Rockwell and Ricky Jay are involved, we're ****ed.


nice:clap:

penchief
09-24-2008, 10:25 AM
I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but there's some kind of fraud going on right in front of our eyes with this thing. Something just isn't right.

And I don't mean bailing out companies. The way it's going down, the amount of money, to whom it's given, and the amount of accountability to both the funds and the reason the funds are wanted. Somebody is committing the crime of the century right under everyone's noses.

I agree with you. And listening to Paulson at the hearings you'd think that they had no obligation to tell us what they were doing.

penchief
09-24-2008, 10:27 AM
Bush is not a conservative. How many have said this here for awhile?
More than a few. I know I have. He's not a populist either. He, as well as Daddy, represent mercantilist economic interests. Hence, the need for wars.

Something we can agree on.

|Zach|
09-24-2008, 12:51 PM
It's like the Patriotic Act except at 10x the cost, 1/10th the consideration, and no inflammatory misleading name.

Pitt Gorilla
09-24-2008, 01:02 PM
From what I'm seeing, no one is thrilled about the idea of a bail-out....except maybe the Bush administration. Any support I've seen is tepid at best, and only as a "there's not much of a choice here, if we wish to avoid broader and deeper economic hardships."I see. They don't support bailouts unless they're really needed. Then, they do.

listopencil
09-24-2008, 06:41 PM
Bush is not a conservative. How many have said this here for awhile?
More than a few. I know I have. He's not a populist either. He, as well as Daddy, represent mercantilist economic interests. Hence, the need for wars.



QFT

Sully
09-24-2008, 06:46 PM
nice:clap:

I was hoping someone would get that reference.

***SPRAYER
09-24-2008, 06:49 PM
This sucks. Why is Barney Frank so fired up to get this this approved?

Mr. Kotter
09-24-2008, 10:42 PM
This sucks. Why is Barney Frank so fired up to get this this approved?

Because the prospect of taxpayers gettin' fugged in the ass over this, excites him? :shrug:

;)

Logical
09-24-2008, 11:07 PM
Bush is not a conservative. How many have said this here for awhile?
More than a few. I know I have. He's not a populist either. He, as well as Daddy, represent mercantilist economic interests. Hence, the need for wars.

I pretty much agree, big props for not using the word neocon and socialist. It must of required tremendous determination.