Thread: Stop the Bailout

I must be missing something here????? It is my understanding that 98% of the Americans polled have said NO to a bailout with our money, but despite that, our "Representatives" in Washington are going ahead with it anyway..... Do I have that wrong?????

That my friends is "taxation without representation" somewhere I have heard that phase before.....

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I must be missing something here????? It is my understanding that 98% of the Americans polled have said NO to a bailout with our money, but despite that, our "Representatives" in Washington are going ahead with it anyway..... Do I have that wrong?????

That my friends is "taxation without representation" somewhere I have heard that phase before.....

No, sadly you don't have it wrong. This is again a case of the people we send back to do our bidding thinking they know more about our own lives than we do. Funny, if I'm your employer and you don't do what I say I get to fire you, but people are so easily swayed by the "us vs. them (the rich/white/male/liberal/feminist/etc.)" argument that politicians drag out for another round every election cycle that nothing really changes. IF this is REALLY a bolster to help the economy and boost international confidence in the American markets, there's a simple solution that wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime: Repeal the capital gains and inheritance taxes. But no. Orrin Hatch knows much more about what's best for me than I do. Thank the Lord above I have him to guide and direct me, otherwise I might not have sense enough to come in out of the rain, or I might start buying up all sorts of consumer credit debt all will-they-nil-they with a "What, me worry?" grin on my face. Good thing he's there to stop me, being so enlightened. You too, Matheson. Turds.

Originally Posted by maplemaker

IF this is REALLY a bolster to help the economy and boost international confidence in the American markets, there's a simple solution that wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime: Repeal the capital gains and inheritance taxes.

Actually, this is a plan to free up credit for businesses that's increasingly freezing up. I don't understand at all how decreasing a capital gains and inheritance tax fixes this at all.

It will increase investing, which in turn will bring the market back up, which will open more capital flow which will give business more solvency. Everything I'm hearing is about how if we don't do it, international investor confidence will be lost, the stock market will crash, the moon will turn to blood and a plague of locusts will cover the earth. OK, so, boost the confidence. Don't socialize insurance and mortgage firms. Just for the poops and laughs files, the money they're talking about paying would be enough to pay every single American roughly 2 million dollars each. Tell you what, congress, give me that money. I'll spend it much more wisely than you or AIG can...

Originally Posted by maplemaker

Just for the poops and laughs files, the money they're talking about paying would be enough to pay every single American roughly 2 million dollars each. Tell you what, congress, give me that money. I'll spend it much more wisely than you or AIG can...

I am not sure what money you are talking about, but the $700 billion bailout amounts to about $2,300 per person in the USA, not $2 million. $700,000,000,000 / 302,000,000 - that is the bailout divided by the population (approximate).

That is not to say it is good or bad, just that it is a few orders of magnitude smaller than you stated.

Lou

Originally Posted by maplemaker

No, sadly you don't have it wrong. This is again a case of the people we send back to do our bidding thinking they know more about our own lives than we do. Funny, if I'm your employer and you don't do what I say I get to fire you, but people are so easily swayed by the "us vs. them (the rich/white/male/liberal/feminist/etc.)" argument that politicians drag out for another round every election cycle that nothing really changes.

Well, that's how representative democracy works. I don't think most people would consider direct democracy any better, and we don't get to switch back and forth depending on how we feel on a particular issue. Yes, in this case the employers do get the chance to fire every four years, so the fact that they can't get agree to do it is their own fault. People like to talk how low the approval ratings of congress are at the polls, but if you look at the turnover you'll notice that the approval ratings are actually extremely high. Classic case of when it's everybody else's fault but not mine/my guy's. To me the real evaluation is what the actions show, not the words.
From what I see the representative democracy is also extremely prone to corruption, as we all see. It's easy to criticize when things are not working, or glorify the infinite wisdom of 'the founding fathers' in setting it this way, when things work, but I haven't seen anybody propose any better system. It will indeed be great if everything worked as we want them to work, but it doesn't.

Personally I'd prefer the government stay out of it completely and let SHTF if that's the result of it. Most people are betting that SHTF is not going to happen and just don't want to pay the 2.5k/member of their family that the current plan costs. If their non FDIC insured savings start melting they'd probably wish they had taken the other option.

The way I see it there has been failures at every level, and the financial system should rightfully not be trusted. Propping it up to 'boost the confidence' is just creating another bubble. Because of the positive feedback the confidence will most certainly overshoot on the way down, but that's just how it should work - it overshot on the way up as well. The lenders trusted too much the rating agencies and made bad decisions - that really is not my problem. I live in this society, so I'd suffer the indirect consequences just like everybody else, but I don't think I should have to be directly involved in the problem by footing the bill.
If this plan gets passed and eventually works out, the same thing will just happen again with the next bubble - probably the alternative energy. I'd say let everybody see what the positive feedback does on the way down, as a practical lesson to think twice next time they it on the way up.

Gugi,

You nailed it pretty well. An old Carpenter once told me, "Measure twice, cut once."
You make a lot fewer mistakes doing it that way.
The clowns in Washington need to do a lot more measuring, BEFORE they cut.

Yeah gugi, we pretty much agree on this one! Shocking isn't it?