A Question of Outrage

[thebigspendur]

I don't really post that often on this forum and I don't think I've ever started more than 1 or 2 topics here but this Government bailout matter has me more riled up than a grizzly bear who just raided an Africanized bee colony and is on the run while being stung for a mile or so.

What has me more outraged than the actual bailout is the attitude of most American's in that they really don't give a rats ass because it ain't coming out of their pockets after all. I mean the Government just runs the printing presses longer and prints up more money right?

Maybe when the next president takes office no matter who it is round about February 09 he goes on T.V to address the nation, I can hear it now. "My fellow Americans, as you all know it will cost around 500 billion dollars or more to resolve this situation so you know that $2500 tax return you got last year? This year you ain't going to get it. As a matter of fact every taxpayer no matter your income level or tax bracket will remit a check for $4,000 to the IRS."

Do you think that would outrage people some. probably the president would have to hide from the public because his life would probably be in serious jeopardy if he ventured outside.

So the Government will sell bonds and get loans from foreign investors to pay for this and some day a bunch of foreign investors will appear with their notes in hand at the Treasury dept and say we want our money and we want it NOW.

What then?

[xman]

I marvel at the irony of the most ruggedly corporatist administration in recent memory adopting the socialist solution. There was a different state administration in the past which operated with tyrannical impunity while espousing the glory of their business class, but those fascists were defeated in the last world war. I never suspected the Bush family colours to have changed since Prescott.

I'm surprised nobody has started a thread on this already.

X

[JMS]

The government has no business bailing out any company in a free market!
It removes the ability to make responsible decisions because you know there will be someone there to bail you out, namely, the tax payers!

[Nord Jim]

I don't really post that often on this forum and I don't think I've ever started more than 1 or 2 topics here but this Government bailout matter has me more riled up than a grizzly bear who just raided an Africanized bee colony and is on the run while being stung for a mile or so.

What has me more outraged than the actual bailout is the attitude of most American's in that they really don't give a rats ass because it ain't coming out of their pockets after all. I mean the Government just runs the printing presses longer and prints up more money right?

Maybe when the next president takes office no matter who it is round about February 09 he goes on T.V to address the nation, I can hear it now. "My fellow Americans, as you all know it will cost around 500 billion dollars or more to resolve this situation so you know that $2500 tax return you got last year? This year you ain't going to get it. As a matter of fact every taxpayer no matter your income level or tax bracket will remit a check for $4,000 to the IRS."

Do you think that would outrage people some. probably the president would have to hide from the public because his life would probably be in serious jeopardy if he ventured outside.

So the Government will sell bonds and get loans from foreign investors to pay for this and some day a bunch of foreign investors will appear with their notes in hand at the Treasury dept and say we want our money and we want it NOW.

What then?

This is a completely legitimate question, and should be asked by patriotic Americans on both sides of the political spectrum.

Personally, as teed off as I am that we're in this situation, I see no choice but to help out some of these idiots. The reason: if some of these fail (AIG is a good example, as are Freddie and Fannie), it's average Americans who will lose their homes, their retirements, and their futures. So, in my opinion at least, it sucks but we have to do it -- and drop the bill on our grandkids. Or maybe we could suck it up and pay it off ourselves?

Bushie, you're doing a hell of a job.

The only given, as far as I know, is that the Repugnicans will under-regulate business, and the Dumbocrats will over-regulate.

End of sermon. We return to our regularly-scheduled programming.

j

[WireBeard]

I think it is time for CEOs and their ilk to no longer be immune from prosecution for driving corporations into the ground.

"Breaking News - The former CEO of has just been released after completing his 10 year prison sentence. Once owning 4 homes, 3 cars, a private jet, and spending per month on expenses and maintaining a "lifestyle" for his family, while was failing and eventually bankrupted, he will now begin 10,000 hours of community service working with the homeless, aged, and with disabled veterans. While the lion's share of his salary, bonus, pension, stock portfolio, and accounts in foreign countries went to compensate employees and stockholders whose retirement and investments were at risk, the court also imposed a punitive damage award which had no cap, stating that only 25% of his future earnings will go towards compensation. Mr. will be living in a trailer provided by the Dept. of Corrections. This reporter attempted to contact his ex-wife, now a waitress at the Waffle House, for comment, but was turned away. Ironically, Mr. was half-way finished with his sentence when he was joined by Sen. and Rep. who had been convicted after Mr. 's trial, where it was revealed they knowingly covered up the impending failure of and prevented an investigation until they had divested their shares."

ZZZZZZZZZZ...snort....what? Where? Oh...I must have dozed off and was dreaming!

[Nord Jim]

I think it is time for CEOs and their ilk to no longer be immune from prosecution for driving corporations into the ground.

"Breaking News - The former CEO of has just been released after completing his 10 year prison sentence. Once owning 4 homes, 3 cars, a private jet, and spending per month on expenses and maintaining a "lifestyle" for his family, while was failing and eventually bankrupted, he will now begin 10,000 hours of community service working with the homeless, aged, and with disabled veterans. While the lion's share of his salary, bonus, pension, stock portfolio, and accounts in foreign countries went to compensate employees and stockholders whose retirement and investments were at risk, the court also imposed a punitive damage award which had no cap, stating that only 25% of his future earnings will go towards compensation. Mr. will be living in a trailer provided by the Dept. of Corrections. This reporter attempted to contact his ex-wife, now a waitress at the Waffle House, for comment, but was turned away. Ironically, Mr. was half-way finished with his sentence when he was joined by Sen. and Rep. who had been convicted after Mr. 's trial, where it was revealed they knowingly covered up the impending failure of and prevented an investigation until they had divested their shares."

ZZZZZZZZZZ...snort....what? Where? Oh...I must have dozed off and was dreaming!

They're not "immune," precisely, but perhaps they're not liable in the way you'd like.

They can be prosecuted for lying about the company's financial health to attract investors. But as far as screwing things up? Obviously, that's never been illegal in this country.

I know you didn't ask, but there are things we could do. It all starts with the repeal of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. We need to make lending mistakes the concern of corporate management and eliminate the conflicts of interest that come from mixing banking, commercial banking, insurance, and investment. I know it sounds like a conflict -- I've just endorsed the bailout in a post above -- but lending institutions especially need to know that they're dealing with their own money. Gramm et al created a situation in which lenders figured they'd be bailed out. This, coupled with CEO incentives that were based on volume of business, not quality, created a bonanza of bad lending. We need to prevent that.

That said, I'd prefer creating a disincentive for bad lending, rather than a hard-to-enforce regulation that attempts to put the a--holes in jail.

No matter what Reagan (and Carl Icahn) said, greed is not always good.

j

[denmason]

I will be watching to see which of our representatives vote for this bailout, and will vote accordingly to see how many can be fired come election time. Call your Congressman. Stop blogging, posting comments, and call your congressman. This is the patriotic thing to do. Let them hear your opinion, show them this is still America and that you will not stand for this!! Here is one website that you can find your Congressman andRepresentativeswith the phone numbers. http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ Let them know you're mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore!!!
It looks like Wall Street has essentially already committed the same malfeasance that ultimately lead to the great stock market crash of 1929, but I think this time it will take much longer for the country to recover.

Washington’s bail outs are socialism for the rich, the well connected and Wall Street; it is the continuation of a corrupt system where profits are privatized and losses are socialized.
In fact, this is a quintessential characteristic of economies run by fascist regimes. For example, historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
~Santayana
So, Monday morning... Start making those phone calls.....

[thebigspendur]

So what I want to know is given they have to do this, why don't they say, well First National Bank of Paducah we're going to take 250 Million Dollars of bad debt from you. No problem but for the next 10 years the Taxpayer will also take 10% of your net profits each year.

[WireBeard]

Sadly, I have little faith anything will be done that will protect the citizens...the politicians and corp execs being 2 sides of the same coin. Someone commented on the being surprised the the administration was resorting to a socialist measure...I don't see that, I see one group of greedy SOB's bailing out their cronies.

Whether repealing Gramm, etc. or putting accountability in place or making the dividing lines between different types of financial institutions more solid and inviolable, we need to take action...

That whirring sound you hear is the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.....yet again.

[Nord Jim]

So what I want to know is given they have to do this, why don't they say, well First National Bank of Paducah we're going to take 250 Million Dollars of bad debt from you. No problem but for the next 10 years the Taxpayer will also take 10% of your net profits each year.

That's pretty much what they're doing with Fannie, Freddie, and, to an extent, AIG.

That raises another issue, though. Should government engage in competitive private enterprise, potentially competing with private companies?

j