Bailout/rescue 2.0 passes both houses; Bush signs it. They hurry if they have to

Yeah, and the bad loans and other bad assets that are at the root of the crisis? You know, the ones that not every living American received? They're still out there weighing down financial institutions and the economy as a whole if we do it your way. But hey! Everybody's got a bitchin' new HDTV now!

The bailout money goes to buying up bad assets (which ideally will then be resold), just like the $124.6 billion savings and loan bailout in the late 1980s. It's the only way to do it that will actually work.

 

Re: Bailout/rescue 2.0 passes both houses; Bush signs it. They hurry if they hav

Exactly. "We" don't deserve the $700B any more than Wall Street does.

 

Well other than that fact that it is OUR money.

 

Yeah, the economy's humming right along ever since those $500 love offerings from George W. hit the mailboxes, eh?

 

We don't? Aren't "We" the one's footing the bill (eventually)? Instead we deserve to pay for companies that suck? I'm not really in favor of giving everybody money just for the hell of it but I'm sure as hell not in favor of borrowing the money from China to pay for a bunch of bullshit earmarks.

 

Re: Bailout/rescue 2.0 passes both houses; Bush signs it. They hurry if they hav

Then, either we balance our budget -- which primarily means cutting defense spending, since we're spending about 2,000% more on that than on "bullshit earmarks" -- or we raise taxes to pay for it.

One or the other. Can't have it both ways.

Which one would you prefer?

 

Changing the argument and making a new one? Nice try

 

Re: Bailout/rescue 2.0 passes both houses; Bush signs it. They hurry if they hav

How is that changing the argument?

You don't want to "foot the bill." And you don't want to "borrow from China."

So how exactly do you propose to get the money?

 

I don't agree with this bill. That simple. As for your point, legislative throw ins (defense spending included) are the reason we can't come anywhere close to a balanced budget. Sure the war has a lot to do with it, too, but until there is major reform in how business is done in washington then the economy gets nothing but band aids. Growing the national debt does not help in the long run.

 

Re: Bailout/rescue 2.0 passes both houses; Bush signs it. They hurry if they hav

I don't know that I'd agree that defense spending is a "legislative throw-in," but OK. That said, those earmarks are NOT the reason we can't come anywhere close to a balanced budget. It's because we're spending billions of dollars a month fighting a war on two fronts.

Stop spending THAT money, and it'll be a lot easier to get back in the black.

Railing against earmarks, right now, is like chastising a teenager for buying a soda and ignoring the fact that he just spent $300 on a PlayStation.

 

I didn't say defense spending was an earmark. I meant that an appreciable chunk of money appropriated for defense gets siphoned into the pork barrel.

You're not going to get an argument from me on the war topic. But to use your analogy, if that teenager buys a soda everyday, eventually its going to cost more than the playstation.

 

We heard the same objections when Bush 41 pushed to bail out savings and loans in the late 1980s ... and the reason that unpopular bailout had to go forward is the same reason this unpopular bailout has to go forward: because if it doesn't happen just this way, then the entire economic system goes into the shitter. People have the exact same complaints about the 2008 bailout as they did about the S&L bailout but when all was said and done, that bailout worked.

And for those of you saying, "Well, let the economy go into the shitter," ... you know that homeless guy you see when you drive to work every day? Without this bailout, in a short amount of time you're standing next to him learning how to get by as a homeless guy.

The "sweetening" thing was ridiculous. The key legislative language is the same. It only happened that way because the leadership groups of both parties in the House of Representatives apparently aren't very good at actually leading so the Senate had to do the HoR's job for it. It does not speak well of the lower house of Congress, which suffered a major loss of face this week.

Look, I opposed the idea of the bailout at first but I was wrong. I also don't like this bill (probably for different reasons, mine related mainly to execution), but we don't realistically and sanely have another option.