User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 40 of 40

  1. #31
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    Politicians are supposed to carry out the wishes of their voters, despite what they think may be "right" or wrong (and I would you don't have any faith in the judgment of most politicians ). If the majority of their constituents want one thing, then that congressman/senator/what have you should be voting and making policies in accordance with that. That is where right and wrong is about numbers.
    I use to believe that. Then I had a lot of experiences about "the people" getting what they want. The job of the politicians is to go to Washington and return as much money back to their constituents as possible. Heh, this votes shows how much better the republicans are at it, but the design of the system is exactly that.

    I don't think this bailout was all that well designed, however the drama over it is vastly overstated. Things were bad, this will help. The design was rushed, but it covers all of the core elements it needed.

    I think what "the people" don't understand is that the damage is already done. The mentality is that it is the CEOs that will pay if things fall apart. It won't be. It will be the contraction of the labour market that makes people lose their job. It will be wage depression. The economy will shrink.

    If you contrast that with higher inflation - which really doesn't hurt the average person that much - the people end up paying it off over a long time. And they don't pay the deadweight portion of a complete meltdown. It's a good deal all around.

    Just so long as the people fighting with the government don't, once again, get up in a huff about regulating the system, the overall growth and quality of life will likely continue only slightly abated.

  2. #32
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Look, we all know the economy is in a bad state, and this bill has only postponed the worst of the symptoms that are now manifesting. Constitutional issues aside, the bill may help in the short term, but the fact is it does nothing to account for any other upsets that may befall us. International issues are looking like something of a hotbed that could really take a heaping dump on the already collapsing U.S. and global economies. If you think the psychology in the markets right now is bad, imagine how much they could be effected by something like an armed conflict in the middle east, and a subsequent hike in oil prices. Imagine how things may turn if we start getting hit by other countries, and they stop holding on to U.S. dollars, or any number of possible influences that could come down the pike in coming years. We need real solutions for this mess. This bailout isn't one of them. If the white house hadn't tried to scare everyone shitless, we might've actually seen a much better bill than the one they passed given more time to work on it. However, most democrats wanted to rush it in with the president and most of the senate wanted to pump every dollar of pork spending into the bill as they could. I doubt they gave a darn about the merits of this bill so much as their own asses. At least the house republicans seemingly acted with an ounce of integrity, even if it was only for a few days :/ . Democrat or republican, I wouldn't suppose more than a handful of people in their lot to have a MAXIMUM of an ounce of integrity.

  3. #33
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    Politicians are supposed to carry out the wishes of their voters, despite what they think may be "right" or wrong (and I would you don't have any faith in the judgment of most politicians ). If the majority of their constituents want one thing, then that congressman/senator/what have you should be voting and making policies in accordance with that. That is where right and wrong is about numbers.
    Not necessarily, there is an old yet still robust normative debate concerning whether representatives should be "trustees" or "delegates." I think they should be something in between; they shouldn't vote contrary to what they said while campaigning, but when an unforeseen situation arises they are obligated to vote their conscience and accept the electoral consequences.

  4. #34
    Seriously Delirious Udog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INfp
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp None
    Posts
    5,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    It seems a lot of people don't get it--at all.

    This wasn't a miracle cure. This is like the surgery for a blown-out ACL ala Donovan McNabb or Tom Brady.

    The rehab still takes a damn long time. So does recovering from a hangover from what I hear.

    The alternative, however, was utter disaster.

    Mostly what's important is that our entire financial system runs on CONFIDENCE. I lend you money if I'm confident you will pay me back. If I don't have that confidence, I'm going to keep my dollars to myself.
    The thing about hangovers is that they go away with time.

    Okay, so serious question... what is your best guess as to how this plan will work? How long will it take to restore this confidence? The bill itself doesn't do anything to restore confidence, only help erase the consequences of the mistakes. How is this going to work?

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Udog View Post
    The thing about hangovers is that they go away with time.

    Okay, so serious question... what is your best guess as to how this plan will work? How long will it take to restore this confidence? The bill itself doesn't do anything to restore confidence, only help erase the consequences of the mistakes. How is this going to work?
    It depends on how fast the banks get back to regular business. This entire problem is in the financial system. If the mortgage backed securities are off their balance sheets, the value of the houses can go to zero for all they care.

    The key is to make sure businesses can return to business as usual. And I'm not talking about Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. I'm talking about every single business that runs on credit.

    And after that, we'll be back to business in short order.

    Edit: if you're looking for an X years kind of answer, that kind of time reference is anyone's guess. But once the ball starts rolling, then we'll be able to make a call. Right now, with the bill passed, the gov't has said "we're ready". The question is this: is the other side ready?
    I am an ENTJ. I hate political correctness but love smart people ^_^

  6. #36
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    and this bill has only postponed the worst of the symptoms that are now manifesting.
    No, it did not postpone the worst symptoms.

    Nothing in this bill will make the root pain go away. The damage is done, and at the root, the people are responsible for it. By defintion, the bubble in real estate involves massive amounts of people bidding up the cost of assets beyond their value. Lots of people took advantage of this, but that is the root problem.

    However, that doesn't mean that the problem is as simple as letting the market correct itself. The market can fail and was in the process of failing. A failing market is the worst possible symptom, and the failure is not automatically systemic. Liquidity traps can be prevented. Naked short selling can be banned. The government can buy up bad debt under new terms (ie: take 700 billion worth of debt, write off up to 10%, earn the ~5% prime on the rest, and end up ahead in a few years.)

    So you tell me - do nothing? Or do something? Do you really think that it'll cost the government, or the people 700 billion? Do you think 100% of the loans being bought will be forfeit? Really? Most estimations still put it between 2-5%, and even the high outliers estimate 10-20%. Given that they will reset rates to remove some predatory issues, the higher amount is possible, and the profitability will likely be reduced... but given that most of the terms are 5 years, and given that they will be just under prime, it is even unlikely that the government will end up down any money at all.

    I oppose the bill somewhat due to the moral hazard. I'd rather the companies be nationalised as they fail.

    However, this bill serves as a confidence bill to get things re-energized, so I understand the logic... I don't see it as required because it isn't directly preventing a market failure (unlike the other "bailouts".)

    However, most democrats wanted to rush it in with the president and most of the senate wanted to pump every dollar of pork spending into the bill as they could.
    Bush didn't really want any pork. He was willing to pass any bill, even the very first super-rushed one.

    I doubt they gave a darn about the merits of this bill so much as their own asses. At least the house republicans seemingly acted with an ounce of integrity, even if it was only for a few days :/ .
    That's a joke. The republicans weren't holding out for integrity - they were the ones requesting pork.

    Democrats were the ones rushing too much, and the republicans took advantage of it. Democrats put the republicans in a no-win situation - do nothing and the market fails, they get blamed. Do something, and they betray their "principles". By rushing, democrats put through a sub-optimal bill, but it was the republicans that tipped the whole thing towards pork.

  7. #37
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I use to believe that. Then I had a lot of experiences about "the people" getting what they want. The job of the politicians is to go to Washington and return as much money back to their constituents as possible. Heh, this votes shows how much better the republicans are at it, but the design of the system is exactly that.
    Are you serious? The majority of members of Congress who voted against the bailout the first time around were Republicans. Am I missing something here?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #38
    / booyalab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,511

    Default

    I looked at the figures and more Republicans than Democrats still opposed the bailout, fewer Republicans than Democrats changed their minds.
    I don't wanna!

  9. #39
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post


    Bush didn't really want any pork. He was willing to pass any bill, even the very first super-rushed one.
    The pork and the rushing for a bill with Bush were two separate points. It's no secret democrats lean more toward socialist policies, so it didn't surprise me that they were so quick to support such a bill. I can't pretend to know how these screwed people think, but the actions of the parties involved were quite typical. The democrat Congress was all over it, the conservative House republicans were very much against it. I'd go as far as to say I have slightly more respect for the democrats, because at least they stick by their own SENSE of integrity (mostly based on some wonky ideology and wacked way of thinking), whereas republicans really know whats right but rarely stick to what they believe in. At least that's how I've observed it over the years. Hence, self proclaimed "conservative" George Bush who is as far from conservative as any liberal.

    But I digress. Congress put some extra junk into the bill in order to win votes, and then the Senate is the group that really went crazy with the pork, which is what one would expect of them. The mostly conservative House members were the least supportive through the whole deal, but they still folded, so they don't get much of a pass in my mind. Still, it's wrong the way the democrats try to put the republicans on the hook so they wont be responsible for all the blame. Don't think I'm really supportive of either group here, they're all pretty depraved.

  10. #40
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Are you serious? The majority of members of Congress who voted against the bailout the first time around were Republicans. Am I missing something here?
    Quote Originally Posted by booyalab View Post
    I looked at the figures and more Republicans than Democrats still opposed the bailout, fewer Republicans than Democrats changed their minds.
    Yup, you guys are correct - I had the numbers flipped around in my head.

Similar Threads

  1. Saoirse Ronan? With quotes
    By Braziliangirl in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-19-2015, 10:22 PM
  2. Star Wars - Darth Revan Tribute with Quotes
    By RaptorWizard in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-02-2013, 07:29 PM
  3. The problem with intellectual property laws (Part 1).
    By Octarine in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-08-2011, 06:48 AM
  4. Martial Law
    By Speed Gavroche in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-26-2009, 06:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO