More Socialism from Republicans

[packsaddle 753]

Just to follow-up on current events, the Bush administration has bought into the bail-out fad completely. We may end up with an additional $1 trillion (with a 'T') of debt just for what we decided to do this week or, as Eisley noted, we might make money. The implications are described in this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21gret.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

We may have to redo this with a much larger bump:

[Aquila calva 10]

The president is four months from retirement and he asks congress to give his friend, Hank, 700 billion dollars, to help fix the mess he has left us with. Here is a three-page request that congress is supposed to pass in less than a week. It just seems very disingenuous. Isnt the president supposed to be smarter than that? It isnt just socialism, it is greed.

 

What a mess!

 

 

[Lisabob 13]

"the president?" yes, the president should be smarter than this, I agree. Here's hoping that will be the case with whoever gets elected in November. "this president?" nah, this is the guy America elected because they wanted to have a beer with him. He's demonstrated his intellectual bona fides pretty clearly, don't you think?

[SMT224 10]

All the $700 billion will do is temporarily prop up the status quo and ensure the CEO's get their multi-million dollar golden parachutes. Plus, it'll ensure we don't have any funds to fix bridges and highways, or explore alternative energy, or fund libraries, or scientific research. This is pure big business (Republican) greed and the Democrats are being naive and spineless as usual. One expects trickle down, and the other trickle up - neither works! True capitalism? Let the current financial and banking industry die, and from the ashes will come forth banking to serve the American people - not the ultra-rich.

[packsaddle 753]

If I am to believe the fed chair and treasury secretary, last Thursday we were on the brink of an economic cataclysm, an abyss so apocalyptically deep and dark that they have not been publicly open with how bad it could have been...had not AIG and others been nationalized.

And this haunts me a bit because of my long-standing view that this administration has taken the country over a cliff...the driver at this point is almost not relevant.

And in his farewell speech at the UN, Bush himself referred to a "house of cards" - I could hardly believe he used these words so often applied to his administration.

Anyway, I DO have a vision of how bad it can be in the abyss. And I do not want any of us, least of all our children and their children, to suffer that fate. The nagging question I am left with is if we DO nationalize these institutions, debts, and investments, will this do anything more than build a taller house of cards? Will it be anything more than another postponement of a fate made even worse for the delay? As my mother used to say, maybe "it's time to take our medicine."

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

we racked up 700 billion in bad debt in 8 years?

[packsaddle 753]

Or less, perhaps. Look at what Bush did to the national debt in less than 8 years.

Debt is 'devilishly' easy to accrue. Whether it's bad or not depends on the ability or willingness to repay.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I dont get out much and wouldnt want to be accused of taking swings at anyone, but is the reason for the "Credit Crunch" due to George W Bush's policies? He did all this by himself? Well with help of is administration? It just seems to easy to lay off blame on the sitting president. One of these days Social Security will go belly up as well. When that happens, will the current president be accused of causing the issue when it was known as a problem for decades?

 

I respect the opinions of the forum, I am trying to get a perspective

[packsaddle 753]

OGE, I'd say that the Republicans in congress as well as the Bush administration are responsible for what happened to the national debt. The tax cuts, the profligate spending, etc. and yes, the Iraq war.

 

I guess in a broader sense, the American people are the ones who are responsible. We bought into the flawed policies and lies that with which we were confronted. So, if it makes you feel better, you can blame me.

 

The house of cards that threatens our financial system was built over many administrations so while Bush didn't build the whole thing, he built part of it and he is certainly the one in the driver seat ("I'm the decider") for nationalization. I also blame each and every agent who 'winked' at rules and qualifications for new debt, thus allowing this crisis to build even more quickly. I also blame every person who sought a loan who knew or even suspected they didn't have the wherewithall to repay it. But where all those are culprits in my mind, I blame this administration if they lay that debt on my children and their children, and their children.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

You know, I was recently labled a Liberal, and in not so flatteringly a way either.

 

I was going to start off with a comment such as "And the Democrats share not blame in all this..." when it struck me. I have entered into the blame game where its more important to assign blame than to fix the problem and make sure it never happens again and to hold those responsible for the mess, responsible regardless of who it is. And saying there is blame enough for everyone and then not doing anything else is not being responsible either.

 

My understanding is exectutives of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae made millions over the past few years or more. Where are they, will they be testifying to Congress in the manner of Roger Clemens or Mark Maquire? It was important to have steroid use in baseball investigated, what about this?

 

BTW, anybody remember the Savings and Loan disaster of the mid 80's? WAsnt Neil Bush, scion of George W the poster child for the mess? It makes me wonder

[packsaddle 753]

OGE, as you say, the one thing that will please me more than seeing a bunch of these guys doing hard time in prison...is realistic and lasting solutions to the mess we're dealing with. I have to admit, I'm not optimistic about either option.

[Aquila calva 10]

Six out of the last eight years there has been a Republican in the White House and majority Republicans in the House and Senate. The national dept has increased by estimates of up to 11 TRILLION dollars.

 

We have been duped, O Lord. And we are about to be duped again this week. Thanks, George.

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah gotta love da audacity.

 

Nationalize all the risk. Reward all the CEOs. Run up the national debt. It's an emergency, so now we should surrender the power of the purse of Congress to the Secretary of da Treasury for two years, with no judicial review and no congressional oversight.

 

Yeh have to admit, they may be dumb, but they have balls.

 

I've always believed that G.W. and his neocon goofs were just incompetent. What's hard to fathom is anybody being this incompetent.

 

I saw this month da Army deploying the 3rd infantry's first combat brigade to Northern Command for civil unrest trainin'. That would be da first time ever an active combat unit has been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command, eh? With trainin' for mob control?

 

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

 

Why exactly are we assignin' an active brigade to train for a mission that would be illegal under Posse Commitatus? Just what kind of civil unrest do we think we need to be prepared for? Oh, wait, I suspect it's because we've completely federalized da National Guard, so they're not available for a domestic emergency.

 

Everything's always an emergency. Everything's always imminent danger of catastrophe. Gives new meaning to Warren Buffet's quip back in 2005 that those mortage-swap derivatives are "financial weapons of mass destruction," eh?

 

Beavah

 

[gwd-scouter 11]

So let's see. From what I hear the main reason for this economic crisis is the housing problem we've had brewing, especially in the last year. So we have $700 billion now that we can throw at the problem, but we didn't have $700 billion last year which could have been used to perhaps alleviate the problem?

 

Admittedly I'm not an economist...

[nolesrule 58]

What's the worry? with our population estimated at about 305 million, that's only $2300 per person.

 

Edited to remind everyone to read the above line as if it was dripping with sarcasm.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)