The entire thing continues to make me feel totally enraged. Why should we pay billions of dollars to not only bail out incompetent CEO's, but even give them golden parachutes which allow them to bail out of the mess they created and live like the Saudi royalty? Meanwhile, children living in poverty go without medical care and decent schools that might give them a chance in life? I am so mad and fed up over all of it. :mad:

SamIam, Blame the fiscal branch of Gov't.

What fiscal branch? It was our wonderful congress that voted for the bailout. The excutive branch in the form of lame duck Dubya signed off on it. No doubt if they had a chance, the judicial branch in the form of the Supreme Court would have corporate welfare become the law of the land. Oh, grrrrrrrr!

I believe the hint was missed.

thanks merc.

Uh no sir, THAT'S HOW WE GOT INTO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE
From here
Good Idea

Someone tell me this is NOT whats going on..... please.

This is not what's going on.



Is that better?

More convincingly, please.

Maybe if you put it in bold, underlined or italics.
Yeh - that might help

Sorry; just listened to National Public Radio. This is what's going on.

Fucking congress - Seems like all those elections flew under the radar too. I think they may be more important too.

Congress is the election process to be keeping an eye on. It matters not who gets elected president anymore. I don't prefer Obama or McCain, but with a supermajority in Congress things could get ugly. I don't trust them anymore than I trust a supermajority by the Repubs. We have already seen what that gave us, and yet somehow we have pervasive mindset that a swing of the pendulum in the other direction is acceptable. Be careful what you wish for.

Unbefuckingbelievable.

Another GM money game to avoid bankruptcy was 0% financing and car leasing. GM constantly sought profit sources to mask a line of crappy cars. GMAC, for example, could reap profits from a government subsidized housing market. GMAC then would sell a GM car by lower its price using 0% financing, etc. Then GMAC would suffer losses many years later. No problem. Bean counters only think in terms of years - not decades.

During the 2000 decade, GM cars were still crap. So GM did another deal for money. They sold half of GMAC to Cerberus Capitial (who also bought Chrysler).

An MBA named Nardelli was running Home Depot slowly into the ground. So they gave Nardelli $200million to leave. Nardelli is now running Chrysler into the ground.

GM and Chrysler decided to merge (as if economies of scale mean higher profits - a myth taught to business school graduates). No problem. Exchange stock and merger done. However both GM and Cerberus own companies that make crappy products, do not innovate, and both own GMAC. Eventually the housing market could no longer coverup 0% financing. So GM and Cerberus Capital Management ran to government for another $10billion.

GM is worth about $5billion. Chrysler is worth maybe $0.5billion. So government will give them $10billion to merge? Since avoiding bankruptcy in 1991 by playing money games (ie stop funding the pension funds), GM has long needed bankruptcy to fix GM's only problem.

Last GM cash cow (without $billions from government welfare - TARP) is slowly going belly up. Another victim of GM that did not face bankruptcy early one. From the NY Times : [quote]Deteriorating Home Market Puts GMAC Unit at Risk
GMAC, the finance company partly owned by General Motors, lost $2.52 billion in the third quarter, hurt by the housing slump and write-downs on vehicle leases, and said Wednesday that its mortgage unit, one of the nation’s largest home loan providers, might not survive.

The loss, GMAC’s fifth consecutive quarterly decline, compared with a loss of $1.6 billion in the period a year earlier and brought GMAC’s losses since the middle of 2007 to $7.9 billion. ...

The finance company’s results will hurt G.M., which still owns 49 percent of GMAC after selling the rest in 2006 to the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management. G.M. will report its earnings on Friday.[\QUOTE] Give GM credit. They sold much of GMAC to an even more foolish Cerberus Capital just before GMAC was no longer useful for money games. GM is excellent at these money games. Has GM run out of places to steal money? Will GM finally fix their only problem - Rick Wagoner? Bankruptcy early enough means few or no employee job losses, replacing finance people with product people, and innovation.

Chambers of Cisco is known for his rosy projections. Chambers today issued a very negative economic outlook. Cisco October sales decreased 9%. This downturn in a company that is productive, innovative, and therefore patriotic American. Few other companies have announced projections. Can GM coverup massive losses again this Friday when they announce earnings? Or are economic forces finally taking revenge for George Jr's economy based on lies, deceit, and money games?

Crappy products and innovation (maybe White House lawyers also rewrote those innovations) are finally appearing on the spread sheets. How honest will those spread sheet be? Friday will be a very bad market day if the spread sheets are honest. Then GM will use those reports are an excuse to beg for more corporate welfare.

Care to expound on that thought process? Specifically to what?

Choice #1 - lawmakers decide how the money borrowed/stolen from our future will be spent.
Choice #2 - clutch of bankers decide how the money borrowed/stolen from our future will be spent.

Two groups whose incompetence has already been exposed will be picking the winners and losers and paying the winners with money they haven't earned. Go us.

There is a one glaring difference.

Under option 2, we are only at risk if we, individually, decide to put money at risk. Nobody is coming into your FDIC insured savings account and taking away money because the market is down, are they? Nobody is showing up on your doorstep and saying, "Sorry, because of the troubled credit market, we need you to pay 20% more for your mortgage" unless you agreed to let them. Prudence and foresight were sufficient to avoid any direct fallout from this mess.

Option 1 affects everyone, all of us, regardless of our individual responsibility. It obligates the prudent and the fool alike to repay money that only some put at risk.

Yes, they are. Where do you think that $700billion is coming from? Economics has many methods of punishing you (all), for example, for not calling the President a liar when he said that "Mission Accomplished" would pay for itself. You money will now be diminished. You are being punished.

That money in your FDIC account has diminishing value as your dollar becomes worth less and as inflation increases massively. And then takes even more money when economics revenge also causes gasoline prices to skyrocket again. Economics also raids that FDIC account by taking away jobs. Don't fool yourself for one minute. Those massive tax cuts to the rich are now being paid for by you. That routine lying on spread sheets made so acceptable especially during this past eight years - you must now pay for that deregulation and welfare to the rich.

And those roads that will be repaved? Those bridges that get rebuilt? That electric system that remains reliable? More ways you must pay. Meanwhile, the only alternative is massive tax increases. But again, more ways that your FDIC account get raided such as when you could not pay your bills. Or you must take a severe reduction in your standard of living.

Having said this, was your stockbroker or finance adviser warning you to get out of equities back in August when that was obviously prudent? If so, then you get to pay less for our economic fiasco.

The time to worry about this was many years ago when Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." He was right because nobody wanted to think in economic terms - in 4 to 10 year cycles. Those Cheney debts are only just starting to become due. So those debts did not matter to Cheney. Now everyone must pay for the party by a few.

So who is calling for the problems to be fixed. You still don't hear mass media commentators calling for fixing GM's #1 problem - Rick Wagoner. Instead, they want to throw more of your money - another part of $25billion into $5billion GM - as if throwing money like a grenade will solve problems.

Not according to the Obama plan.

or the Bush plan. They both use confiscated dollars. There is no individual choice.

I consider the plan to confiscate $700 Billion, to be distributed willy nilly, to be direct fallout. There will be costs to the rest of the economy to pay for this free ride. I made the poor choice of paying my own way for housing now I get to pay for "yours" as well. Go me.

From what I can tell there never was a Bush plan. The rescue plans were designed and passed by the Democratic controlled Congress. Bush just rubberstamped them in as a Lame Duck President.

Can you point to which particular deregulation?

Wrong, that is a complete rewrite of history. The Bush plan was to demand the money with no strings attached during a panic. Originally he got his way, but now the once compliant congress is winding string having found an opportunity to turn Republican pork into Democratic pork.

I think I misunderstood. I took option 1 to be the bailout with the government taking over failing institutions, and option 2 to be no bailout, letting the economic chips fall where they fall.

To merge a maybe $2.8billion company with a $0.5billion company, GM wanted government to add $10billion to $25billions of corporate welfare. Since that was not good enough, Rick Wagoner had meetings with Pelosi and others to beg for another $25billion in free money. All this because innovation was routinely stifled in GM and Rick Wagoner is mostly interested in a job that enriches himself. After all, Wagoner is a classic business school graduate doing what bean counters routinely do. Notice his salary and bonuses are not $1 per year like Lee Iacocca - a cary guy - did.

With deregulation this past eight years, GM did zero product innovation. None because significant GM innovation only happens when required by government regulation. Shameful. But that is what happens when finance people - ie business school graduates or communication majors - run a corporation or industry.

Numerous examples of deregulation to enrich only the richest were provided even though UT does not see them. Having promoted destruction of the American economy, now George Jr's administration might sign off on more and massive free money. Free money to those who did more to destroy America than Saddam Hussein. That last sentence clearly is not disputable.

The Economist discusses more examples of deregulation in "The Great Untangling" of 6 Nov 2008: CDOs - how to do insurance without regulation. Deals carefully worded so that state insurance commissions cannot regulate them. Structured to fall under the domain of the SEC where deregulation was rampant and enforcement was reduced to minimal - especially by George Jr's administration. IOW CDSs became another tool to hide losses from the spread sheets thanks to no regulation and Enron style accounting. Too little too late. But the lesson is obvious. Financial markets where so many 'expert' are nothing more than slick salesmen with the same ethics - this industry needs massive regulation.

Take for example your stock broker. Did he tell you to get out of stocks last August or earlier because he knew his job? Or was he more interested is the profits from managing your money. These people are not experts in basic economics or sufficient to evaluate equities. But they can spin deals. People who are experts in enriching themselves in commissions and management fees. How to we keep these people honest? Regulation that they well deserve.

Another way to regulate markets is a centralized exchange. The NYSE and Nasdaq add further regulations to stocks which is why most investors find greater safety there. Honest financial markets cannot operate without regulation. In a desperate effort to save derivatives such as CDOs, some are recommending the creation of centralized markets where derivatives such as CDOs would be heavily regulated and where derivative salesmen - just like stock brokers -alsp are regulated salesmen.

Some industries deserve to be heavily regulated. In thirty some years, when a new generation hypes a political agenda such as financial deregulation and promotes equity brokers as smart, then you should be smart enough to laugh in their face.

Many industries do not need massive regulation. But then those industries are regulated by the free market and by products that are limited and can be grasped. That is not true where finance people sell products that "with no fixed supply of raw material ... bets could be almost limitless."

If many jobs are lost two years from now, well look back at the money games promoted by George Jr, et al to make the economy appear productive - to promote themselves. Guess what. Deficits do matter.

Meanwhile, the worst thing we can do is destroy the auto industry by giving them free money. As long as the MBA Rick Wagoner is running GM, then innovation will continue to be stifled and all employee jobs are put at risk.

But those examples are not examples of deregulation. They're shady people working their way AROUND regulation. Is it a problem, yes; could it be introduced by the administration, yes; does in involve regulation, yes; is it deregulation, NO. The Economist doesn't call it deregulation so why do you?

Now come on, be an adult; there was no deregulation, am I right?

So many examples of deregulation from so many posts ignored. The Economist was specifically quoted saying deregulation contributed to this economic fiasco. Did you read that long ago when the example was posted specifically for you to read?

Another example of ignored deregulation - Glass-Stegall. Some parts were eliminated - deregulations. Other parts were simply not enforced - deregulation. Bottom line - none of Glass Stegall remains.

If you were honest, then you would have posted proof that deregulation did not exist. You did not because you cannot. So you are doing the only thing you can - take cheap shots. You don't prove 'no deregulation exists' because no such proof exists - just like George Jr's lies about WMDs. BTW, you did that exact same thing there. You provide zero proof that Saddam had WMDs. Your only proof was to claim I and my citations were wrong. By now, I would have expected you to learn that proof is not found in nay-saying me. Where are YOUR facts that say deregulation does not exist? Even The Economist said it exists (and what follows are more citations from tw) in "A survey of the World Economy When fortune frowned” on 9 Oct 2008 : In the same issue, "Taming the beast" said: In "Changing the Rules" on 2 Oct 2008: And then from Griff's post of 6 Oct 2008 (see also John McCain's Gramm Gamble: We are different. I demand facts rather than turn speculation into beliefs. Need an example of why your logic does not work? UT knew that Saddam had WMDs only because he felt it must be true. Despite numerous facts and citations from tw, UT instead denied those facts. And just like with 'deregulation', UT refuses to prove 'deregulation does not exist'. He does not like the many examples of deregulation. That proves that deregulation does not exist? - just like that proved Saddam had WMDs? UT, where are your citations and proof that deregulation did not exist? In the same bin, using the same logic, that also proved Saddam had WMDs?

Why do you keep supporting that scumbag mental midget?

UT even ignored a sentence in that latest (6 Nov 2008) quote from The Economist that demonstrated another classic example of deregulation: Makes little difference whether one opens the gates or leaves them open. That was George Jr's deregulation to let the wolves into the hen house. George Jr got the deregulation he wanted. We get to suffer the consequences.

How many citations and example do you need UT? The above citations are in addtional to a long list cited previously. Why do you ignore them just like you ignored the numbers that said, "No proof exists for Saddam's WMDS". Why do I cite this? Because you are again making the same logic mistake you made then. You denied AND you provide no supporting facts for your belief.

You, UT, must prove that deregulation did not exist. You refuse and you can't.

Using my own basic logic and reputable sources, I think most of what tw has posted in this thread rings true. But clinging to the term deregulation, in instances where new regulation was sorely needed, but not forthcoming from the government, is stubbornness that's off putting to readers not familiar with our resident sage. :smack:

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=499135&postcount=88

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122403045717834693.html
FAIL

An FDIC law was passed that required American banks to conform to Basel 1. Then the administration exempted investment banks from that law. Deregulation. Administration let investment banks raise their debt to equity ratio from 12:1 to 30:1. FDIC law was to make such debt to equity ratios unacceptable. Ahhh .. but this was not deregulation, says UT.

Administration continued deregulation which meant not agreeing with another international banking standard - Basel 2 - so that financial deregulations would not be reversed. Basel 2 further defined the equity required by financial firms for all those new investment vehicles. But that would eliminate the new deregulation - especially self regulation.

UT, your citation was disputed for multiple reasons. You chose to ignore facts such as the new debt to equity levels. And you again ignore those facts to repost nonsense.

Meanwhile, The Economist said Not regulated. Re-regulated as in putting back and enforcing the regulations that were eliminated by deregulation and self regulation ... again contradicting UT.

Or another citation from The Economist says deregulation existed and then created a mess: Of course, that entire article is a myth because UT tells us that deregulation did not exist.

Of from the NY Times of 28 Sept 2008 Or from the NY Times of 26 Sept 2008: Voluntary supervision. Another deregulation. Christopher Cox was a strongest advocate of deregulation (which is why he got the SEC job to eliminate regulations and enforcement).

Or this editorial from the NY Times on 27 Oct 2008 entitled "Rescuing Capitalism". Oh. There is no deregulation according to UT. Therefore the editorial is about something that does not exist? Or this from a Washington Post article entitled "What went wrong" on 15 Oct 2008: UT also says if a law exists and is no longer enforced, then that is not deregulation. So yes, to law books, that is not deregulation. To all relevant parties and the real world, that is clearly deregulation. Just another way that George Jr got his desired deregulation.

We are now prospering from the deregulation that George Jr wanted. Argue semantics all you want. CDSs are simply insurance policies renamed with the cooperation of Federal authorities so as to not be regulated. Laws did not change. But the regulation did. Just another example of deregulating the business.

Bruce is correct. Lack of regulation has also contributed mightily to our economic problems. My every post agrees with him. In 2005, Credit Default Swaps amounted to $10trillion in a world now worth $70trillion. In 2007, CDSs were estimated at $60trillion. All this time (in 1999 and 2004), regulators had become alarmed, especially because of lessons from LTCM. But the new mantra was deregulation including its variation - self regulation. Therefore even new regulations were constantly stifled by the powers that be.

I never said otherwise. But I also said deregulation by an extremist administration significantly contributed to this mess.

Regulations on new financial instruments were sorely needs - ie Basel 2. But UT has argued that George Jr's administration is innocent. That's just plain stupid from both the facts and the administration's reputation. George Jr's administration promoted deregulation, and stifled repeated attempts to regulate or even measure new financial instruments such as CDS.

Numerous responsible sources all say that deregulation also contributed to our economic fiasco. UT said The Economist was quoted calling it deregulation both before UT posted in error and after. Deregulation is clearly to blame for this economic fiasco.

Apparently UT read a Wall Street Journal editorial that claimed George Jr did not institute any deregulation. He can argue semantics. Bottom line - deregulation was the only relevant George Jr regulation.

Looking back at it, I wasn't clear. My preference would have been to take the hard economic adjustment, leaving market forces in place to punish bad behavior. I saw Merc giving the administration a pass when they had asked Congress for the cash. That criticism isn't based in any belief that Congress will be virtuous.

Wherever you are getting your information from, it's broken.

Citation needed.

Well if that sorta thing happened, it would be nonregulation not deregulation. But, you know, you're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_II

Oops.

Did they happen to mention what deregulation they were talking about here? No they didn't. Did tw assume it was Bush deregulation. Yeah he's not a very good reader. When did it actually happen? Banking deregulation preceded the Bush years.

Does anyone know why legislation stalling in 2000 is not relevant to Bush administration deregulation. Anyone? Anyone?


Here's the Washington Post's story "What Went Wrong". Its opener:

A decade ago...

And they go on to describe how the big guys at Treasury ensured that deregulation was the interest of the day... although the story fails to connect that deregulation to any parts of the failure, except Bear Stearns.

Does anyone know why matters that happened in a back room at Treasury in 1998 are not a good example of Bush administration deregulation? Anyone? Anyone?

The story puts much of the onus on the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which prevented SEC regulation of the investment banks the way they wanted, leading to a system of self-regulation that failed. Does anyone know why 1999 acts of Congress are not a good example of Bush administration deregulation? Anyone? Anyone?

I don't buy that, it is a rewrite of history to call it a rewrite of history. It was no pass for the Bush admin because as you see from the posts above, it started before Bush became president.

Is this the Limbaugh angle, pretending there is no bailout unless the Democrats change it from serving incompetent bankers to serving incompetent borrowers? As narratives go it's convenient but hardly compelling.

We can play the blame game, fo evah. What we need is the cure.

word

I got this from a cow orker. I am too lazy to check its veracity, but I like it.

Quote of the Week

That begins with the purpose of companies. Having defined that, only then can a bank's function be defined.

What is the purpose of a company? Zengum quotes what happens when society and its company's objectives (and therefore a bank's purpose) are subverted.

Some of that destructive behavior was quoted previously and grasped by those who need more than sound bytes to comprehend. A banking system serving unlimited speculation is clearly not serving society. One industry that definitely cannot be trusted to be unregulated is the finance industry. One industry whose primary purpose is supposed to profit only by servicing other industries is the finance industry.

An example. Intel had technically superior microprocessors well before 1981. Intel constantly had one problem. Intel could not get financing to make what the world (society) needed. Banking and Wall Street could not do its job for obvious reasons. They only understood profits - not their purpose. Intel finally made killer products only after IBM made the major investment that resulted in fabs.

Today, another financial institution solves that same fundamental problem. Too many banks still forget their purpose. Venture capitalists do what banks routinely fail to do. The only valid speculation results in what society needs - innovative products. Something with a defining characteristic: investment in raw materials that are limited and that result in a useful (innovative) product.

Again, why are we in this mess? Our wacko extremists (mostly due to total ignorance and a political agenda) encouraged a Ponzi scheme where investment had "no fixed supply of raw material" so that "bets could be almost limitless."

Only legitimate investment invests in reality - products that come from limited raw materials and that serve the fundamental purpose - advance mankind.

The Economist was quoted to demonstrate what deregulation created and what happens when the finance industry serves itself rather than society: [QUOTE}They are, ... a “Ponzi scheme” that no self-respecting firm should touch. Eric Dinallo, the insurance superintendent of New York state, calls them a “catastrophic enabler” of the dark forces that have swept through financial markets. Alan Greenspan, who used to be a cheerleader, has disowned them in “shocked disbelief”. ... [/quote] CDSs, SIVs, mortgage backed securities, etc all existed or were perverted to enrich bankers and brokers; not to serve society.

Not defined in paragraph one, because you were already expected to know this. Those who promote corruption say the purpose of a company is profits. Honest purpose of any company is to serve mankind. Profits must only exist when it achieves its purpose. Otherwise a company (or its bankers) are corrupt.

We have a massive economic fiasco because deregulation openly encouraged the finance industry to enrich itself rather than serve society. How does a Merrill Lynch executive get $200million to bankrupt his company and leave? Welcome to an America now subverted to enrich so many who produce nothing - who get rich playing legalized ponzi schemes. Why are so many bankers permitted to play that game rather than serve society? Deregulation of the wrong industry. How many actually knew the purpose of a company (and its bankers)?

Using economic stimulus plans (throwing money at a problem) simply encouraged America to play money games rather than innovate. Economics will again take revenge. Intel announced a $1billion reduction of sales in the 4th quarter.

With a market reduction of 40%, I had assumed the market had finally found a new, lower, and realistic value for America. A reduction directly traceable to George Jr's "deficits don't matter" and "welfare to the rich" (ie the secret changing of tax laws at the start of October).

I may have been too optimistic. Numbers (even in home prices) suggested that America (and your pensions) should drop as much as 40%. Based upon this Intel revelation and what may happen tomorrow (Thursday), America's net worth value may drop again. Show me where the real problems have been addressed?

Welcome to what happens when your government does nothing to avert Enron accounting and to throw money at problems. Even GM has no restructuring plans for good reason. GM is queuing up early for even more government welfare rather than fire Rick Wagoner and use 70 horsepower per liter engines.

Tomorrow, the stock market will again ask, "How much is America really worth?" now that so many Americans are MBAs rather than people who do something productive and innovative.

I had hoped the market found a bottom. Since we have not done anything to attack problems - ie Enron style accounting - and while even Cisco and Intel sales have tanked - we will see tomorrow what happens when "Deficits don't matter".

Of course, Palin could have saved us - as if George Jr's praying for guidance averted all this. Tomorrow, we will ask how much of America's wealth disappeared before government starting handing out billions like it was candy. Has America been only 40% overvalued - or were spreadsheet lies even more egregious?

Soon to line up for free government money - boat building companies. Clearly we must save jobs.

First the Democrats in Congress Bail out the big corps, now they are going to bail out the Automakers, and the DNC has the balls to ask for people to send them money to reduce their debt from the election. Screw them.

This was Paulson's plan to save America. Now that TARP and $700billion has not solved anything, he is responding to Democratic calls (more stupidity) to bail out companies without any requirements to fix their problems. Did no one learn from 1979 Chrysler and 1981 Ford? Even NPR tonight discussed the severe medicine that saved those companies. Does everyone still worship myths from the MBA schools?

"Ford to NYC: Drop Dead" - a headline on the NY Post that actually saved NYC. Why is this poster who some called a liberal, instead, such a hardass and more conservative than even our wacko conservatives? Maybe there wacko liberals and conservatives - and then others who deal in reality?

What has become apparent: Paulson's (a George Jr man) only plan was ill conceived (in a three page memo), was only supposed to be a temporary solution, and remains the only plan on the table. Why? He and Bernanke have no idea what to do. That realization is starting to scare the many and the markets.

This sudden revelation on Wall Street combined with Intel's hours old announcement may create but another massive sell off.

Oh. Last of the banks given special exemption (deregulation) by George Jr on equity requirements - both Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs - may need to concede. Neither appear to be solvent enough to become a commerical bank. That would mean all five investment banks, provided George Jr liberation from equity requirements, will disappear.

Just another example of economics taking revenge on a nation who let their leaders play money games - who said "deficits don't matter". As Warren Buffet said, the only [real] tax cut is one that cuts spending. We have yet to pay for that $1trillion war. And so our illustrious leaders spend more money than any Democrat ever did AND will now use more debts to pay for that bailout. The rooster has come home to ... shit? George Jr's legacy.

Notice another example promoted by MBAs. Drill, Drill, Drill. Notice that solution also completely ignored the problem. Welcome to Paulson's latest plan. It's getting scary again.

If only Palin replaced Cheney. Then all this would go away.

Fuck you and your fucking revisionist history. I can appreciate an honest difference in opinions about how to best proceed to make this country better, but your blatant lies about this recent history are unforgivable.

The $700 billion dollar bailout was a bipartisan plan devised primarily by Bush through his appointee Paulson and modified by Congress to gain the votes needed to pass it. Bush gave a speech begging Congress to support the revised plan. And said he was "very disappointed" when they didn't at first. The Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate passed it together, and Bush quickly signed it into law the same day. You may hate the plan, but to say it is a Democrat only plan is a complete rewrite of history. You are a liar. Stop being one.
-----------------

For the record, Merc. Here's the time line:

September 29, 2008: The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (H.R.3997) was introduced. This bill was a revision of the Bush/Paulson plan. In an early morning White House address, Bush urged lawmakers to pass this revised plan into law.* Just before the vote, Pelosi made some partisan comments that some Republicans didn't like.* The bill was defeated.* The Republicans may not have had the votes anyway. * As a result of the defeat, the DJIA dropped 777 points that day. White House spokesman said that Bush was "very disappointed."*


October 1, 2008: The Senate approved a revised measure, H.R.1424. 34 Republicans and 39 Democrats voted for it.

October 3, 2008: The House approved H.R. 1424 on October 3, 2008. 91 Republicans and 171 Democrats voted for it. President Bush, a Republican, quickly signed it into law the same day.*

*applause*

I love this one. (see bold)

Through no fault of their own. Like a truck came outta nowhere while they were sitting on the couch eating popcorn and crashed into
their den?

Why is it seen as alright to rescue big corporations and not everyday working people? Are their sins more forgivable or what?

Who said it was or wasn't?

Classic, didn't these banks and financial companies get into trouble 'through no fault of their own, too?

Not in my opinion, NOT AT ALL.

Two posts and nothing said.

1) Why is it seen as alright to rescue big corporations and not everyday working people?

2) Why did these banks and financial companies get into trouble 'through no fault of their own, too?

A major oppurtunity exists. Classicman would answer Pico and Me with a reply that does not waste bandwidth. There it is, classicman. His two questions. You consumed bandwidth with cheap shots. Now, what is your answer - which means you also post supporting facts. An answer with supporting facts - please fill us with your wisdom.

Classic, Im still confused...which questions were asked of me?

Post #287 - sorry singular

Oh, you mean your question for my question? Thats me being somewhat rhetorical. You seem to like jumping on the 'slam the little guy for his financial indiscretions' bandwagon, which just brought my question to mind. I responded to your question with post #288. Do you really need me to clarify that it wasn't you who 'said it'?

I have a major issue with giving these banks this corporate welfare and then not giving anything to the people on the front lines whose lives are more seriously affected by this mess. Not giving them help because it was 'their fault and bad decision making' when we are doing it for corporations is just plain sinister.

What we have here -

... is failure to communicate.

Again.

This is getting too cozy.

I agree with that. I never said anything to the contrary. It still sucks that those who are paying their mortgages and their taxes have to bail ANYONE out.
I think you took my quote out of context. I believe the lenders are at fault. I believe the politicians that passed the laws which forced lenders to offer loans to people who really didn't qualify are at fault and I think that the people who took out loans that they knew or should have known they couldn't afford are both at fault.

The reason(at least to my understanding) for the bail out is to ensure that the economy doesn't go into a crash that would rival 1929

I'm still of an opinion that this recession would have been relatively short (a couple years) and very hard if they didn't bail any organizations out. With the bailouts we're subsidizing organizations that need to fail, propping up housing prices that need to go down, and punishing savers in favor of the over-extended. This will likely be long and hard. I often wonder about the lessons we "learn" from history, was world war really the only way out of the Great Depression? Consider as well the re-writing that has been done in the meantime. Merc is hardly the first person to create and disseminate false history.

As presently constructed, the GOP is the party of business subsidy and the Dems are the party of individual subsidy. Neither is a party favoring responsibilty. At this point, I figure the best option is to go to work every day do my job and hope that Obama can find a middle way that doesn't create incentives for further nonsense.

That's a disconcerting point from Griff there. The great depression was a significant factor in causing WWII, and the eventual economic recovery was partly driven by the military spending of the 1930s.

So, ah, if this does turn out to be a very bad depression, does that mean we are going to have another big war in maybe a decade's time? Hope not!

I just read a headline in today's paper that said pretty much the same thing.