[GSixZero]

I'm curious what everyone thinks about what's being proposed in bailing out wall street. Is it good/bad/indifferent? Thoughts on the different plans being proposed?

[Big Mac]

Given that brilliant economic minds support this bail-out, it's hard to second guess their view. However, they better use the funds properly, and I hope we're able to avoid huge increases headline inflation that could result from what appear to be exceedingly loose monetary and fiscal policy.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Given that brilliant economic minds support this bail-out, it's hard to second guess their view.

To be fair, I've not been following this as well as I might, but are these the same brilliant economic minds that got us into this mess in the first place?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

To be fair, I've not been following this as well as I might, but are these the same brilliant economic minds that got us into this mess in the first place?

Who all have worked on, or are working on, Wall Street?

No vested interest there.....

[villalobos]

I thought this article was kinda funny.

"How We Became the United States of France "

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

I thought this article was kinda funny.

"How We Became the United States of France "

Hehe, good article.

[Sayf-Allah]

Interesting read:

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008...nse-model.html

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Given that brilliant economic minds support this bail-out, it's hard to second guess their view. However, they better use the funds properly, and I hope we're able to avoid huge increases headline inflation that could result from what appear to be exceedingly loose monetary and fiscal policy.

That's some funny stuff. They made themselves rich, they screwed up, and now they want us to bail them out, and they want to do it in a fashion where whatever they do will be subject to no review by any law enforcement agency or Congress. It'd be hilarious, if it wasn't so tragic.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That's some funny stuff. They made themselves rich, they screwed up, and now they want us to bail them out, and they want to do it in a fashion where whatever they do will be subject to no review by any law enforcement agency or Congress. It'd be hilarious, if it wasn't so tragic.

It's more than the bailout though. The socialization of our markets that will result from this mess is going to devastate any growth potential we had left. The next ten years are going to suck.

We don't need MORE regulation. We need real accountability, and that includes not bailing them out.

[Doofy]

This collapse was designed to happen. But TPTB don't want it happening just yet since it's not quite large enough to suit their needs. So they inject some cash into the system to bail out the parties involved and the whole thing just carries on a little while longer, gathering more steam.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

To be fair, I've not been following this as well as I might, but are these the same brilliant economic minds that got us into this mess in the first place?

No, Greenspan is out.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by mduell 

No, Greenspan is out.

Yeah, Greenspan has a measure of blame for holding interest rates so low for an extended period of time. But the lion share of the blame goes to the Socialist GSEs, their corrupt heads like Frank Raines who got obscenely rich off of Fannie while defrauding the public over its financial results, and the Democratic Congressmen like (Socialist) Barney Frank who demanded and got irresponsible lending practices from Fannie and Freddie and declared there was nothing wrong with them financially in 2005 when obviously there was a serious problem. Historians will not be kind to these individuals.

[icydanger]

http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0828 Pelosi's opinion. The débâcle of swissair is another bad example

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It's more than the bailout though. The socialization of our markets that will result from this mess is going to devastate any growth potential we had left. The next ten years are going to suck.

We don't need MORE regulation. We need real accountability, and that includes not bailing them out.

I agree that this is one solution.
Deregulation and `letting the market forces play it out' only works if you let these big banks go down the gutter. Unfortunately in these situations, many libertarians and free market folks (some of which are the White House and Congress) turn into state interventionists.

In my opinion, either you have some sensible regulations to avoid these situations or you take free market speak seriously and stop intervening even when it hurts. A mixture of a lack of regulation and bailing big banks out afterwards is the worst solution of all.

[PB2K]

700.000.000.000 US$ to help failed bankers get another big bonus

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Gruss wrote:
>> Up to 10,000 staff at the New York office of the bankrupt investment
>> bank Lehman Brothers will share a bonus pool set aside for them that
>> is worth $2.5bn (£1.4bn), Barclays Bank, which is buying the business,
>> confirmed last night.

it's taxpayers money. does this seem right to you?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by icydanger 

http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0828 Pelosi's opinion. The débâcle of swissair is another bad example

What does an airline (which is still alive today and makes money again) have to do with banks and investment banks in particular?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In my opinion, either you have some sensible regulations to avoid these situations or you take free market speak seriously and stop intervening even when it hurts.

I agree with you here in general, OC, but I'll point out that much of the problem was due to over-regulation, government corruption and cronyism subverting the free market. We wouldn't have had two monolithic government lending institutions if not for the Socialist FDR. They would not have been as compelled to make risky loans but for Clinton's Urban Redevelopment Act and the bullying of corrupt Congressmen. And it also needs to be pointed out that there was an entire government auditing agency dedicated only to auditing Freddie and Fannie. This agency had a $65 Million budget and a very specific, narrowly-defined mission, and it continued to release reports asserting that all was well with Freddie and Fannie up to the collapse.

A lot of people, purposely misled by Democratic propaganda, are going to come away with the wrong conclusion that this serious economic situation was caused by a lack of regulation when it was actually too much regulation and illegitimate, deleterious regulation - too much government interference - that was the true cause. That doesn't mean poor choices weren't made by overly-greedy private players, nor does it excuse their misconduct. However, government should not be given a free pass when its fingerprints are all over the crime scene.

As I see it, going forward we need minimal, sensible regulation that is enforced equitably (including sensible regulation of securitization schemes), and aside from that we need the government to get the hell out of the way of the market, rather than distorting it with all kinds of onerous lending requirements and government facilitators of bad loans.

[OreoCookie]

I don't think your argument makes sense: even though you are (as far as I can tell from your posting history) against government intervention, you are for it now, because the fault has been too much government intervention (by overregulation)?

Either you follow your principles and allow them to change politics (here: allow the forces of the free market to take care of the crisis, let the banks collapse if necessary), even though it might not be popular in the short term. Or you succumb to the temptation of mediocrity: you advertise free markets when intervention is not necessary, but allow for interventions when it seems opportune.

This policy gives an advantage to big companies and banks (smaller banks and companies are not rescued by state intervention) and it prevents `negative feedback' in the world of big business (as bad business decisions for some of the big banks will not lead to bankruptcy).

I don't want to get into a discussion of who shares the blame for getting into the crisis (IMO market forces are much stronger than politics), but we can clearly discuss who deals how with this problem: a Republican administration and a Democratically controlled Congress have bailed out some banks (and AIG), so I don't see why this is a partisan issue.

On the contrary, I think those who are usually touting the benefits of the free market, but now support the bail out show that they are not serious about their free market ideology.

As I said, either a sensible regulation of the banking system (with all the implied consequences) or a free market (here: no government bailouts) are in my opinion the better strategy than this schizophrenic approach. In my experience, politicians of all couleur cannot resist the temptation/pressure to not bail out these businesses and I haven't seen the latter approach working. Just like communism: even beyond ideological arguments, it just doesn't work.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't think your argument makes sense: even though you are (as far as I can tell from your posting history) against government intervention, you are for it now, because the fault has been too much government intervention (by overregulation)?

I find this bail-out somewhat dubious, and I'd prefer the market work itself out. At the same time, I can't say I oppose it outright because the stewards of our economy who I substantially respect (Bernanke and Paulson) are fully behind this plan. In my previous reply to you I was referring more to the role of improper government intervention/regulation that harmed the market, rather than discussing the relative merits of the bail-out plan.

[OreoCookie]

Why can't you be against something that people you respect are for?
Just because you are opposing some ideas by respectful people doesn't mean disrespect or something along those lines. It just means that you have a different opinion.
And if, say, Pelosi and Obama came up with the exact same plan, would you oppose it (because, presumably, you don't respect them as much as Bernanke and Paulson)? Shouldn't you base your decision on your own opinions and facts rather than who does or doesn't support it?

I do understand what you were trying to say, but it's still inconsistent in my opinion.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I find this bail-out somewhat dubious, and I'd prefer the market work itself out. At the same time, I can't say I oppose it outright because the stewards of our economy who I substantially respect (Bernanke and Paulson) are fully behind this plan. In my previous reply to you I was referring more to the role of improper government intervention/regulation that harmed the market, rather than discussing the relative merits of the bail-out plan.

The same Paulson that didn't see this crisis coming?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Why can't you be against something that people you respect are for?

I can be. I'm just humble enough to admit that their economic credentials far exceed my own, so before I pass judgment I should take a very close look at what they're proposing.

And if, say, Pelosi and Obama came up with the exact same plan, would you oppose it (because, presumably, you don't respect them as much as Bernanke and Paulson)?

I would probably be more likely to oppose it for a number of reasons, including that I don't have much respect for their opinions based on their political records and qualifications. OTOH, I think Obama has seized upon a good idea by calling for some investor-style profit sharing scheme for the tax-payers in the future, if we are to be called upon to fund this bail-out and it works out well.

Shouldn't you base your decision on your own opinions and facts rather than who does or doesn't support it?

I have not yet come to a firm decision on the bail-out. I will try to base my decision on my own analysis of the facts, which will include an assessment of our economic leaders' views on the subject. If our economy were less complex than it is, an objective analysis of the financials would be all I would need, but given its great complexity, as well as the complex nature of the problem at hand, I believe it's necessary to weigh the opinions of those economic elites when making my determination to support or oppose a bail-out. If I end up supporting it, it will be based on the premise that more government intervention now to correct the mistakes of past government intervention is a superior option to the alternative of doing nothing to ameliorate the economy after hobbling it.

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

The same Paulson that didn't see this crisis coming?

Once the sub-primes got securitized, everyone knew they would eventually cause a fall-out of some magnitude, but there was no immediate way to insulate the economy from said fall-out. Paulson can't really be blamed for not running around shouting "the sky is falling" prematurely (unless he could have preempted the irresponsible practices years ago but failed to do so), nor can he be faulted for not taking action over failures before they happened.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I can be. I'm just humble enough to admit that their economic credentials far exceed my own, so before I pass judgment I should take a very close look at what they're proposing.

You don't have to be an expert on something to form an opinion on it (e. g. taxation or stem cell research, I'm not an economist or a cell biologist, yet I do have opinions on them).

What I find questionable is not that you were looking into their arguments to a certain degree (that you individually can still follow), but just stop at names. I'm sure there are people you respect as well who oppose the current plans, although they are not as involved as Bernanke and Paulson.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I would probably be more likely to oppose it for a number of reasons, including that I don't have much respect for their opinions based on their political records and qualifications. OTOH, I think Obama has seized upon a good idea by calling for some investor-style profit sharing scheme for the tax-payers in the future, if we are to be called upon to fund this bail-out and it works out well.

It's good that you admit to this, but I still think we'd be much better off if people were judging by issues and not people. This is the source of all partisanship and a universal constant all around the world.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I have not yet come to a firm decision on the bail-out. I will try to base my decision on my own analysis of the facts, which will include an assessment of our economic leaders' views on the subject. If our economy were less complex than it is, an objective analysis of the financials would be all I would need, but given its great complexity, as well as the complex nature of the problem at hand, I believe it's necessary to weigh the opinions of those economic elites when making my determination to support or oppose a bail-out.

The problem here is that there are surely economic leaders who will say the opposite and they are also armed with good arguments. Expert opinions can only help you to a certain degree. Kind of like getting different treatment plans from different doctors

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Once the sub-primes got securitized, everyone knew they would eventually cause a fall-out of some magnitude, but there was no immediate way to insulate the economy from said fall-out. Paulson can't really be blamed for not running around shouting "the sky is falling" prematurely (unless he could have preempted the irresponsible practices years ago but failed to do so), nor can he be faulted for not taking action over failures before they happened.

In the banking industry, people were knowing about the sub-prime loans problems for years. My sister's ex bf (who back then worked at a major European bank, now he's got a business in Switzerland) told us casually about this looming crisis as early as 2002. I'm sure that knowledge wasn't limited to the bank he worked at. The banks were betting on this bubble and, surprisingly, some have lost their bet. The sub-prime loan crisis just wasn't public knowledge back then and certainly the banks didn't want to make it public.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

The same Paulson that didn't see this crisis coming?

No, the same Paulson that says there shouldn't be any oversight in how the $700B investment that Americans are making will be used.

[PB2K]

so who's going to pay this bill?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

To be fair, I've not been following this as well as I might, but are these the same brilliant economic minds that got us into this mess in the first place?

No, that would be Congress and Lefty do-gooders who got us there in the first place. CRA and HMDA and a handful of other acts that encourage lending to those who can't repay (and the push by HUD to get Freddie and Fannie to buy subprime in the mid-90s) got us to where we are today.

The "law of unintended consequences" applies -- mortgage derivatives are a GOOD THING up to a point, and that point was reached prior to about '95 or so when Congress and HUD and others decided to milk the market for what it's worth.

As for the 'Little Guy', he's already benefitted. As with the S&L crisis of the 80s, when someone asks "where did all that money go?" you can tell them that lots of people got low mortgage rates who didn't deserve them, and lots of people got houses (some for a few years only) who couldn't afford them. That's who benefitted. Obviously WALL ST. didn't benefit b/c they're having to shut down a lot of things now.

As for this being "public knowledge": folks in the industry knew about it, and there was even a resurgence of sorts in 2002 to promote the no income loans and change the percentages of home ownership for low-income groups in this country. That's the frustrating part: a lot of this was done ON PURPOSE without considering the damage or effect that it might lead to. By people who should know better, and some people who knew better and did it anyway (Greenspan).

It's the height of irony to now see Congress holding hearings about this, when they have been there all along. Chucky, Barney Frank, Sen. Dodd -- they WATCHED IT HAPPEN and in some cases promoted this, knowing where we were headed. Morons, all of them.

[Mithras]

Yep, it's the goddamn poor people who made out like bandits. Lucky duckies.

[Kerrigan]

I've replaced this entire anecdotal post with something more relevant. This is good, sound advice from the charmain of BB&T (One of the banks that is actually doing well at the moment):

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are the primary cause of the mortgage crisis. These government supported enterprises distorted normal market risk mechanisms. While individual private financial institutions have made serious mistakes, the problems in the financial system have been caused by government policies including, affordable housing (now sub-prime), combined with the market disruptions caused by the Federal Reserve holding interest rates too low and then raising interest rates too high.

There is no panic on Main Street and in sound financial institutions. The problems are in high-risk financial institutions and on Wall Street.

While all financial intermediaries are being impacted by liquidity issues, this is primarily a bailout of poorly run financial institutions. It is extremely important that the bailout not damage well run companies.

Corrections are not all bad. The market correction process eliminates irrational competitors. There were a number of poorly managed institutions and poorly made financial decisions during the real estate boom. It is important that any rules post “rescue” punish the poorly run institutions and not punish the well run companies.

A significant and immediate tax credit for purchasing homes would be a far less expensive and more effective cure for the mortgage market and financial system than the proposed “rescue” plan.

[TheWOAT]

Apparantly Paulson still works for Goldman Sachs... and since when was G-S a bank?

[nonhuman]

This whole 'bailout' thing has actually inspired me to write my representatives in strongly worded terms against it. Something I generally don't bother to do because I live in Massachusetts and don't really expect Kennedy, Kerry, or Capuano to respond well to my libertarian leanings. Hopefully my Zieglerian prose (I've had just enough to drink that I couldn't restrain my own floridity) will overwhelm them...

[Mithras]

I saw this interesting chart today -- a representation, in inflation-adjusted dollars, of the relative size of various government bailouts. Take-home: this proposed bailout is really, really big.

If you're too lazy to click, it's the big one at the end. The S&L bailout is the next-biggest maroon thing, then that blue Fannie/Freddie thing, a long two months ago, then the brown AIG buyout seven whole days ago. Arguably the three recent ones should be one supergigantic ball of fire.

One caveat is that it shows the "gross" price, not the ultimate net cost to taxpayers -- for example, I understand the government actually made money on the Chrysler bailout when all was said and done.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

This is good, sound advice from the charmain of BB&T (One of the banks that is actually doing well at the moment):

John Allison is a bright guy. [And a genuinely nice guy, I'm told.] He refused, by the way, to make loans on eminent domain properties after the Supreme Court decision. He sponsored an "Ayn Rand Reading Room" at my alma mater (UNC-Charlotte) last year and people freaked out.

He's right. Most people are still paying their (fixed rate) mortgages, and the business of America is still getting done. The circus that is Congress, however, could end up pushing us into a spiral, regardless of what he says.

Expectations are everything in economics, and if CNN says there's a recession long enough, people will start to act like it. A lie, repeated often enough, becomes fact...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

To be fair, I've not been following this as well as I might, but are these the same brilliant economic minds that got us into this mess in the first place?

IMO, yes.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It's more than the bailout though. The socialization of our markets that will result from this mess is going to devastate any growth potential we had left. The next ten years are going to suck.

We don't need MORE regulation. We need real accountability, and that includes not bailing them out.

[lpkmckenna]

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. Snappy ideology, George.

Everyone's favorite john, Eliot Spitzer, predicted this meltdown six months ago. Predatory Lender's Partner-in-Crime. The blame for this mess lay entirely in the hands of the Bush Administration.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Everyone's favorite john, Eliot Spitzer, predicted this meltdown six months ago. Predatory Lender's Partner-in-Crime. The blame for this mess lay entirely in the hands of the Bush Administration.

Why is six months ago significant? People have been warning about this meltdown for years.

[G Barnett]

Let 'em fail. If there's to be a bailout, then bailout the folks who are going to be directly harmed by this -- the people paying on their mortgages. Pay off every mortgage at risk of default due to the shenanigans of these assholes and allow the people who actually drive the economy -- i.e. the consumers and average joes -- to keep their houses, keep their livelihoods and actually have some money they can use.

The investment banks can then try to dig themselves outta this hole on their own.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

The investment banks can then try to dig themselves outta this hole on their own.

They're going to pay the price, that ship has already sailed.

What we're talking about if something isn't done is: pay 50% down for a house going forward. Pay cash for your car. Forget student loans for college. Etc. That's not overstating the issue here.

Nobody's going to end up with a house for free (maybe a couple years' rent for free). Nobody's going to get the golden parachutes out of this, or at least not many bodies (Franklin Raines had to give his up already). Main street has already gotten out of it what it's going to get -- what ordinary folks stand to lose is what we should be talking about.

Be careful that the political rhetoric coming out of Congress right now doesn't obscure the facts: there's a lot of iffy debt out there, and it's underneath everyone's car loans. And credit cards, and boat loans. And student loans. And mortgages. Let it die, and everything we know about credit today will change.

Not that it would be a bad thing (not for ME at least -- I pay my mortgage on time). But everything you know to be true about borrowing money could change (and has already changed to some extent) overnight.

Those of us with cash and assets and income will be OK. Everyone else won't be.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Mithras 

I saw this interesting chart today -- a representation, in inflation-adjusted dollars, of the relative size of various government bailouts. Take-home: this proposed bailout is really, really big.

Some of these are bailouts (give-aways of cash), some are purchases, some are loans. Misleading at best.

Purchasing assets today is no different from Congress telling FNMA or FHLMC to purchase subprime loans over the last 13 years, so I fail to see Congress's distress over the new policy.

[G Barnett]

What is clear is that Wall Street is having its Jimi Hendrix moment -- they've been drunk on greed and money for too long and now they're drowning in their own vomit wondering how the hell it came to this....

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are the primary cause of the mortgage crisis.

No, they are not. They are problems, but they are not the cause of the mortgage crisis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/op...=1&oref=slogin
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/...out/index.html

A point that gets easy to miss in the current hullabaloo over the bailout is that Fannie and Freddie were not primarily responsible for either the housing boom or its bust. That responsibility is more fully borne by the non-government sponsored enterprises who play in the real estate market -- the private mortgage lenders, commercial banks, investment banks and myriad institutional and hedge fund investors who engaged in an orgy of exotic mortgage loan and mortgage security innovation and speculation. Toward the very end of the boom, Fannie and Freddie did begin to get more involved in subprime loans and related derivative markets, but that was because they were losing market share to the fully private sector.

Conservatives love to beat up on Fannie and Freddie, and there were a lot of problems with these institutions, but the truth is, the root of the problem is the derivatives market. These simply did not exist until relatively recently, and people have been warning for years that these financial tools are a bomb waiting to go off in the financial sector. Unfortunately for all of us, that bomb finally detonated.

[Kerrigan]

I'm really beginning to think we that we should just let the deal tank. Let those people that can no longer meet the terms of their mortgage agreements sink down to a more appropriate standard of living. Let the institutions that got involved sink, too. Frankly I'm not very happy that McCain is pushing this deal with Obama.

Or, if congress does pass the deal, and it fails (as I think most of us suspect it will), so be it. Starve the federal government, as Greenspan says.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. Snappy ideology, George.

Everyone's favorite john, Eliot Spitzer, predicted this meltdown six months ago. Predatory Lender's Partner-in-Crime. The blame for this mess lay entirely in the hands of the Bush Administration.

Bush has requested 17 times for added regulation for the GSE's. McCain pushed for legislation back when Raines got booted and the Democrats balked. The people who fought for F&F to get to do more of what it had been doing that got it in trouble where not Republicans, but people like Dodd (who was top at the list on F&F's congressional payroll) and Frank (whose old boyfriend was an exec. with FM). The Republicans aren't blameless, but the idea that somehow Bush is all at fault is laughable.

[Big Mac]

The funniest thing to me so far about this bail-out (which is otherwise a very serious matter) is the interview Socialist Congressman Dennis Kucinich gave to Fox News a day or two ago, in which he sounded like a champion of the free market. It was absolutely hilarious.

[TheWOAT]

Understatement of the year: This whole mess makes the privatization of Social security very unlikely within the next 10 years...

[mattyb]

This problem, as Gordon Gekko said it, is greed.

[Krusty]

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/a...008/09/24.html

Interesting little video. Basically, a free market guy saying this whole mess is sham and that the there are very straightforward means of solving this problem without $700bln of taxpayer dollars. Anyone who knows more about macroeconomics like to watch this and give your opinion whether this guy is full of hay or not ?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The funniest thing to me so far about this bail-out (which is otherwise a very serious matter) is the interview Socialist Congressman Dennis Kucinich gave to Fox News a day or two ago, in which he sounded like a champion of the free market. It was absolutely hilarious.

The funniest thing to me is how it's turning political and economic ideologies on their heads. Capitalists are arguing for socialist solutions while Socialists are arguing for free market solutions.

[Big Mac]

Yeah, it's quite interesting from that perspective, Wiskedjak.

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Understatement of the year: This whole mess makes the privatization of Social security very unlikely within the next 10 years...

That's one of the worst things about this situation. The Democrats can continue to obstruct and frighten the public to keep the current pyramid scheme of Social(ist) (In)Security in place by claiming Republicans want to privatize the system to expose retirement savings to market risk. But if current contributions made by individuals were just put into individual savings accounts (and, for the sake of argument, no stock ownership was allowed for those funds at all), their retirement money would be protected from government theft that goes on today. Current workers would be saving for themselves, not for current retirees (though it would have to be phased in to keep current retirees in the benefits they were promised) and not for the government to steal (as they do with the surplus in the fund today), and people would be able to pass their individual retirement accounts to their heirs. Democrats don't want any of that because it deprives them of their power to rule over people's lives and confiscate the fruit of their hard work and their toil. And imagine, that idiot female Dem Congressman from Florida had the nerve to lie on national television and say Social(ist) (In)Security won't be in crisis for another forty years.

[spacefreak]

Galveston, Texas - they voted out of Social Security like 25 or 30 years ago. Their retirees now receive double what they would have gotten from Social Security. The investments on the macro level were quite conservative.