[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't want any money from the government to bail me out. In fact, I'd quite like it if the government forgot I existed.

But I'm guessing you are not one of the megacompanies that are going bankrupt so you don't really matter in this.

You seem to think that the government is bailing out these banking giants? The banking giants own the government, so they're simply bailing themselves out. They own you too, so be a good little prole and pay your taxes with the rest of the sheeple.

I don't live in the US or the UK were my tax-money is spent on such pet projects. In fact, US tax-payers are probably going to inject some money into the Icelandic banks if this goes through. Which in turn benefits me so I say please go through with this!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

In fact, US tax-payers are probably going to inject some money into the Icelandic banks if this goes through. Which in turn benefits me so I say please go through with this!

Good luck when they come asking for it back.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Good luck when they come asking for it back.

You haven't really been following this have you?

That's exactly the thing. They aren't putting any strings to the 700 billion dollar give-away. Meaning they won't be asking for it back.

Which is great for us non-USAians.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

You haven't really been following this have you?

Of course I have. A little more closely than you have, I suspect.

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

That's exactly the thing. They aren't putting any strings to the 700 billion dollar give-away. Meaning they won't be asking for it back.

Hey look, there's a squadron of pigs just flown past my window!

Do you really believe that the US government is going to do anything to help foreigners out if there isn't something much bigger in it for the US? (And why should it? After all they're employed to look after Americans' interests, not ours).

They'll be back for it sometime. The methodology they use to retrieve it may be hidden from us mere proles for a while, but they'll be back for it. As sure as night follows day.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Hey look, there's a squadron of pigs just flown past my window!

On Ramadan!? This is an outrage! This is an insult to Islam and to Muslims everywhere!

:storms off to burn some random flags:

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

After all they're employed to look after Americans' interests

I know you're not that naive.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I know you're not that naive.

Did I say which Americans?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

On Ramadan!? This is an outrage! This is an insult to Islam and to Muslims everywhere!

Well you will keep changing the bloody date! It's hard enough for us infidels to keep track of stuff which has fixed dates, without random stuff too.

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

:storms off to burn some random flags:

Here's one for ya:

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well you will keep changing the bloody date! It's hard enough for us infidels to keep track of stuff which has fixed dates, without random stuff too.

We are trying to keep you guessing! Mwuahahahahhaa..... (about what I don't know )

Here's one for ya:

...infidel french flag....

:lights molotov cocktail:


ps. we need a smiley that's rubbing his hands together with an evil smile!

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not sure on the following).

Doesn't Bush have to sign everything that the Congress does so that it becomes law (or funded through new laws)? Doesn't he have the final say when it comes to the direction that the US takes?

Well....sort of. He has to sign the spending bills. But it's all or nothing since we cannot have a line-item veto. I'll be the first one to say he should have used the veto pen MANY more times than he did. I just don't think one can put it all on him.

Originally Posted by tie 

...And that's exactly what I said. I don't understand what your problem is.

That's not what you said. You referenced oil prices, but didn't specify what period of time you were talking about. In any case, it wasn't just the weak dollar that caused the spike(s).

Oh, sorry, I forgot I was talking to a Bush apologist.
Tell me, what did you think about the Iraq war? Did we just barely avoid nuclear armageddon by attacking a country that had no WMDs?

First, you don't even know me. I've also been critical of Bush at least twice on this page alone. But that's a good liberal for you...argue ad hominem rather than debate the issues at hand. Can't win a debate? Switch the to the WAR where PEOPLE DIED because Bush LIED. Effin' A.

If the government is assuming the risks of these companies, then it has every right to regulate them much more strictly. And it has the responsibility in fact to do so, because the companies are risking taxpayer dollars.

I'm OK with that statement, actually. I just think one needs to be careful about what precedent is set.

And that's why I call it a gift.

Semantics, I suppose.

Of course I do.

No, you don't. You literally made it up because it sounded good.

You can do a whole lot with $1 trillion.

There won't be a trillion dollars if the global financial system goes into meltdown. This is not hard to comprehend for most people.

That's in the territory of the Iraq war cost,

No, it's in the territory of the projected Iraq war cost. We've appropriated around half of that much. See...just making crap up again!

and you only need a quick Google search to find dozens of webpages listing better ideas on how to spend that kind of money.

A "quick Google search.....to find webpages" You mean like this? . Or maybe this? . No wait...how about THIS!

Yeah, I know. It's Clinton's fault. LOL. Now why don't I take you seriously?

My comment was tongue-in-cheek, but let's talk about that. I can't say it was Clinton's fault. I can say that Alan Greenspan is an idiot. I also can say that Congress and the Clinton Administration helped expand credit to those who didn't previously qualify. I can further say that the Clinton Administration operated under an interesting conundrum: They were obsessed with short term economic health for political reasons, but didn't really do anything to help the economy, either. What they did do (and this was continued by the Bush Administration) was ensure unprecedented access to credit. Fair?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Well....sort of. He has to sign the spending bills. But it's all or nothing since we cannot have a line-item veto. I'll be the first one to say he should have used the veto pen MANY more times than he did. I just don't think one can put it all on him.

Probably true.

I just wished the economy of the rest of the world wasn't so linked (and dependant) on the US market. Markets here were I live are falling (as is our currency) basically for no other reason than that the US market is in the state it is. Irritating.

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Probably true.

I just wished the economy of the rest of the world wasn't so linked (and dependant) on the US market. Markets here were I live are falling (as is our currency) basically for no other reason than that the US market is in the state it is. Irritating.

Yeah...well it is certainly how things work. At least for now. It's one reason why a bailout has to happen. It's not just about the US firms, nor even the US economy. It's about the entire global financial system. Everything is interconnected.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Yeah...well it is certainly how things work. At least for now. It's one reason why a bailout has to happen. It's not just about the US firms, nor even the US economy. It's about the entire global financial system. Everything is interconnected.

True.

To be honest blaming someone for this is useless (but a bit fun). It's just a question of wanting a truly free market or a well-regulated market. And unfortunately it seems like the well-regulated market should be the way forward.

[tie]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Well....sort of. He has to sign the spending bills. But it's all or nothing since we cannot have a line-item veto. I'll be the first one to say he should have used the veto pen MANY more times than he did. I just don't think one can put it all on him.

Bush also proposes the budget in the first place and had control over Congress for six years.

That's not what you said. You referenced oil prices, but didn't specify what period of time you were talking about. In any case, it wasn't just the weak dollar that caused the spike(s).

No, it is what I said. Why would I be talking about oil prices six months ago? You were just determined to try to find some flaw in my argument that you started making things up.

First, you don't even know me. I've also been critical of Bush at least twice on this page alone. But that's a good liberal for you...argue ad hominem rather than debate the issues at hand. Can't win a debate? Switch the to the WAR where PEOPLE DIED because Bush LIED. Effin' A.

It isn't an ad hominem. The war is directly relevant. First of all, the war was another case where we were told that there was an emergency and we had to act right away. It turned out not to be an emergency at all---we were lied to---and the true cost turned out to be about a factor of fifty more than we were told. Second of all, it says something about your poor judgement that you are a Bush apologist who (apparently) also fell for Bush's lies about the war.

No, it's in the territory of the projected Iraq war cost. We've appropriated around half of that much. See...just making crap up again!

No, the cost of the war goes beyond direct appropriations. I'd say Google it, but it seems from your next paragraph that you can't figure that out. Basically, it's Clinton's fault.

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by tie 

Bush also proposes the budget in the first place and had control over Congress for six years.

Yes, yes. We know the President and Republicans went on a spending spree. I agree. But let me ask you...what happened to Democratic promises to clean things up? They've been in control for two years and nothing's changed. One cannot just blame Bush and be on his way.

No, it is what I said. Why would I be talking about oil prices six months ago? You were just determined to try to find some flaw in my argument that you started making things up.

If that's what you meant, fine. But it wasn't clear.

It isn't an ad hominem.

"I forgot I was talking to a Bush apologist." = not ad hom?

The war is directly relevant.

Not to this discussion, it's not.

First of all, the war was another case where we were told that there was an emergency and we had to act right away. It turned out not to be an emergency at all---we were lied to---and the true cost turned out to be about a factor of fifty more than we were told. Second of all, it says something about your poor judgement that you are a Bush apologist who (apparently) also fell for Bush's lies about the war.

There it is again---"Bush apologist. " You've known me for all of two days, and yet somehow you are qualified to make that judgment. I am nothing of the kind and beyond this point I won't continue to defend myself against ad homs. You can just fire away.

But let's discuss "lies." There is absolutely no...I repeat NO evidence that Bush "lied." None. What we had was a catastrophic failure of intelligence. If you feel Bush lied, then consider:

• Congress saw the same intel and concluded Saddam had WMD
• The head of the CIA said the case for Saddam having WMD was a "slam dunk."
• Leading Democrats claimed he had them and that we had to act.

In other words, if Bush lied, so did all of the people in the quotes to which I linked.

No, the cost of the war goes beyond direct appropriations. I'd say Google it, but it seems from your next paragraph that you can't figure that out. Basically, it's Clinton's fault.

This is nothing but a pissing contest. The point is moot. You're relying on the faulty logic of the False Dilemma. The choice was not whether to spend a trillion dollars on X or Y. Without X, there would be no Y. Period.

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

True.

To be honest blaming someone for this is useless (but a bit fun). It's just a question of wanting a truly free market or a well-regulated market. And unfortunately it seems like the well-regulated market should be the way forward.

Respectfully, I think that choice is false. The market is always going to be regulated. The problem is the kind of regulation and the efficiency of the regulation.

[tie]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Yes, yes. We know the President and Republicans went on a spending spree. I agree. But let me ask you...what happened to Democratic promises to clean things up? They've been in control for two years and nothing's changed. One cannot just blame Bush and be on his way.

It is hard to walk away from a war in progress.

Not to this discussion, it's not.

Yes, it is. When the administration claims there is an emergency and it turns out to be a lie, the next time they claim there is an emergency with no time for debate or looking into the facts, it will be greeted with skepticism. Bush's lies on the war affect everything he does.

But let's discuss "lies." There is absolutely no...I repeat NO evidence that Bush "lied."

There is tons of evidence that Bush lied. Do you not read the news? I don't get it. Just to counter one of your points, for example, Congress did not see the same intel as Bush saw. Are you really that naive? Run a search and you'll find lots of quotes complaining about limited intel access before the war, even from congressmen on intelligence committees.

You're relying on the faulty logic of the False Dilemma. The choice was not whether to spend a trillion dollars on X or Y. Without X, there would be no Y. Period.

No, I'm not. If you are going to spend $1 trillion, you absolutely have the choice on what to spend it.

Look: I'm sure you are well intentioned. But you come in here crying "financial armageddon" without giving any evidence and admitting that you'd gullibly fallen for the last cries wolf that were made without evidence. No, I don't know you. I can only judge you from what you've written. Why should you have any credibility?

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by tie 

It is hard to walk away from a war in progress.

Wait...that's the excuse? Please, you must be kidding me. The Democrats did nothing. They have been no better than the GOP with spending. In fact, they've been worse. Blame the GOP for their mistakes...that's fine. But you'd better acknowledge that your party has done nothing better.

Yes, it is. When the administration claims there is an emergency and it turns out to be a lie, the next time they claim there is an emergency with no time for debate or looking into the facts, it will be greeted with skepticism. Bush's lies on the war affect everything he does.

First of all, it's not the The Evil Bush Administration (TM) alone claiming that there is an emergency. You're asking me to open my eyes....are you kidding me once again? The market is in meltdown. Major firms have gone bankrupt with more to come. Credit markets are a nightmare. Try getting a mortgage lately? I did. It took me almost 3 months to get approved with good credit AND being a previous home owner. Things are a mess. It's certainly not just the Bush Administration telling us there is a problem.

Now let's address your next part:

There is tons of evidence that Bush lied. Do you not read the news? I don't get it. Just to counter one of your points, for example, Congress did not see the same intel as Bush saw. Are you really that naive? Run a search and you'll find lots of quotes complaining about limited intel access before the war, even from congressmen on intelligence committees. [/quote]

Would you please post some links? Could you point me to a report showing that Bush knowingly deceived the nation? Or, will you continue to rely on supposition? Will you continue to claim that because there were no WMD found, Bush lied? The fact is you will do exactly those things, because there is no evidence. What you have is suspicion. You have no proof that Bush knew there were no WMD and convinced the nation to go to war anyway. The world intelligence community believed Saddam had WMD. Israel believed it. Russia believed it. France believed it. The UK believed it. The Germans believed it. Did they lie too?

No, I'm not. If you are going to spend $1 trillion, you absolutely have the choice on what to spend it.

OMFG! What do you not understand? IF THE WORLD ECONOMY COLLAPSES, THERE WILL BE NO TRILLION DOLLARS. We're going to have to borrow the money, tie. That necessitates having someone to borrow it from.

Look: I'm sure you are well intentioned. But you come in here crying "financial armageddon" without giving any evidence and admitting that you'd gullibly fallen for the last cries wolf that were made without evidence. No, I don't know you. I can only judge you from what you've written. Why should you have any credibility?

No evidence? This is getting hysterical. You're claiming that there is a mountain of evidence that Bush LIED, yet you've posted none. Meanwhile, the financial world is in utter disarray and you're fiddling as Rome burns. Unlike you though, I'll actually post some of that evidence.

List of failed banks

All about Bear Sterns

Tech companies scramble in financial meltdown.

DJIA down most in two days since 2002.

Google News search for the word "meltdown."

Yeah...no evidence. It's all gonna be OK. Let's borrow a trillion dollars and build some bridges instead. Oh, and let's keep spending money like it's going out of style. The GOP did it, and we can't be expected to clean up their mess. And while we're at it, let's raise taxes on "the rich." It's not like people that "make" over $250,000 a year own small business or anything.

[tie]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Would you please post some links?

This isn't the thread for it. Unless you've been living in a cave, you'd already have them. That's my point, you are just out of touch with reality.

Unlike you though, I'll actually post some of that evidence.

List of failed banks

All about Bear Sterns

Tech companies scramble in financial meltdown.

DJIA down most in two days since 2002.

Why don't you give some analysis instead of just posting random links? Here, I'll help you out. Looking at your first link, there are twelve banks that have failed so far in 2008. Eleven banks failed in 2002. Interesting. It looks like a recession, but it does not look like an economic armageddon. (Feel free to post more links that contradict your claims and support mine, it saves me the trouble.)

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by tie 

This isn't the thread for it. Unless you've been living in a cave, you'd already have them. That's my point, you are just out of touch with reality.

Fine, then start one that is or post in one that exists. You're not getting off that easy. You don't have evidence because such evidence does not exist. You cannot demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush knew that Saddam did not have WMD and wanted to go to war anyway. You just can't.

Once more, I see you ignored that part about the Evil Bush Administration(TM) not being the only party telling us there is an emergency.

Why don't you give some analysis instead of just posting random links? Here, I'll help you out. Looking at your first link, there are twelve banks that have failed so far in 2008. Eleven banks failed in 2002. Interesting. It looks like a recession, but it does not look like an economic armageddon. (Feel free to post more links that contradict your claims and support mine, it saves me the trouble.)

Uh, you've not given ANY support to your claims whatsoever. I don't even know what you're claiming. Is it possible that you're claiming we are not on the precipice of disaster? It's all a lie put forth by the Evil Bush Administration(TM)? Yeah, I think it is.

As for my links, I love your response. You see, I've dealt with your kind before. I post factual data, and you say "hey! what about analysis!" I post analysis, and you say "hey! that's an opinion, not a fact!"

If you cannot see what's going on here, all I can do is thank God himself you're not running the country. We have something much, much worse than a simple recession happening here. In fact, we're not even in a recession. A recession is defined by two consecutive quarters of negative growth (economic contraction). We've not had that. No, what we have is a complete meltdown of a our credit system.

Surely you can see this. You're actually claiming that things are no worse on this front than in 2002? Tell me, did Lehman Brothers go Chapter 11 in 2002? How about AIG, which was saved at the 11th hour from the same fate? Bear Sterns? Merrill Lynch? Morgan? These are financial giants...the most respected in the industry, and they are essentially screwed. Even the behemoth Citigroup needed additional capital. WaMU is near bankruptcy. Wachovia is on that road and it remains to be seen if it can veer off.

Let's keep going. GM will likely avoid bankruptcy if all things are equal, but not if GMAC goes under. Ford? Chrysler? None are in good shape as it is.

Look at the credit markets. Banks that once had 40 mortgage products may have 15 now. Minimum credit scores have gone from 590 to 680. Anyone between 680-720 is scrutinized. We don't have a problem here?

It amazes me that you can look at this situation and say, objectively, that you think it's another lie from the Bush Administration. Seriously...it's actually so stupid that it's shocking.

[SDW2001]

http://plantcity2.tbo.com/content/20...ships-nationw/

Read that....a litte tidbit for those that think the current crisis is the work of the Evil Bush Administration. A large Chevy dealer closes his doors for financial reasons. I guess it's "just a recession." No worries, mates!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

No, it's just another of the big American auto companies who've been completely blindsided by the shocking fact that oil prices would go up and trucks and SUV sales go down.

You can't blame stupidity on a bad economy.

greg

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

http://plantcity2.tbo.com/content/20...ships-nationw/

Read that....a litte tidbit for those that think the current crisis is the work of the Evil Bush Administration. A large Chevy dealer closes his doors for financial reasons. I guess it's "just a recession." No worries, mates!

Of course, it doesn't help that the dealer is involved in an enormous lawsuit against it for signature forgery and deceptive business practices, does it? There are some tough times ahead, but this particular incident has nothing to do with a bad economy, and everything to do with bad management.


http://www.autoblog.com/2008/09/25/w...all-13-stores/
Another possible reason for the mass closure could have something to do with a pending suit against Bill Heard Enterprises involving signature forgery and deceptive marketing that could result in up to $50 million in fines.

[SDW2001]

Fair enough. Let's look at this then: Largest Bank Failure in US History. WaMu ($300 Billion) is dead.

[bearcatrp]

I like this idea better.........................

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.

So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.

That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in thei r pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads

Put away money for college - it'll be there

Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.

Buy a new car - create jobs

Invest in the market - capital drives growth

Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves

Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else


Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed
by one of our candidates for President.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG - liquidate it.

Sell off its parts.

Let American General go back to being American General.

Sell off the real estate.

Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."

But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion

We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC

And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by bearcatrp 

I like this idea better.........................

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.

So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.

That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in thei r pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads

Put away money for college - it'll be there

Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.

Buy a new car - create jobs

Invest in the market - capital drives growth

Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves

Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else


Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed
by one of our candidates for President.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG - liquidate it.

Sell off its parts.

Let American General go back to being American General.

Sell off the real estate.

Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."

But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion

We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC

And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

<Al Gore Voice>

A-GREE!

</Al Gore>

[stumblinmike]

This is way too much common sense. Please stop.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

<Al Gore Voice>

A-GREE!

</Al Gore>

Yes, because clearly it makes more sense to give a bunch of money to people rolling in money than it does to give it to everyday Americans.

[tie]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Surely you can see this. You're actually claiming that things are no worse on this front than in 2002?

It was your own link! If you want to claim that things are much worse, then you need to give evidence for that. But the link you gave said that things were essentially the same. Don't blame me for actually reading your links.

Let's keep going. GM will likely avoid bankruptcy if all things are equal, but not if GMAC goes under. Ford? Chrysler? None are in good shape as it is.

Yes, but GM should go bankrupt. They've destroyed the company by betting on bigger, less fuel-efficient cars, and refusing to invest in the future. GM has some of the worst executives around, and I think we'll be much better off letting it die.

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Yes, because clearly it makes more sense to give a bunch of money to people rolling in money than it does to give it to everyday Americans.

I was being serious. I was just using my Gore voice. I like it. <gore voice> I a-gree with the govna on this part-ic-ular isssue. But I disagree......</al gore>

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by tie 

It was your own link! If you want to claim that things are much worse, then you need to give evidence for that. But the link you gave said that things were essentially the same. Don't blame me for actually reading your links.

How can you even be serious. I posted the FDIC link to show bank failures. You focus on one and only one apsect...the total number of failures, then make the ridiculous leap that "things are just the same" as they were in 2002. Holy hell. If you honestly believe that, then I again get down on my knees and thank God himlself you are not running the country. The ignorance is amazing.

Want more evidence? Here ya go, champ. The Largest Bank Failure in U.S. History. Keep sticking your head in the sand, clicking your heels and wishing on a star. Maybe it will all be OK in the morning.

Yes, but GM should go bankrupt. They've destroyed the company by betting on bigger, less fuel-efficient cars, and refusing to invest in the future. GM has some of the worst executives around, and I think we'll be much better off letting it die.

Again, this shows a total ignorance of both GM's business problems and the overall economy. Stop...you're embarassing yourself.

GM is not in bad shape solely because it "bet on bigger, less fuel efficient cars" or because of "terrible" executives. The price of gas hurt GM, but that is simply not their biggest worry. In recent years, they have focused on fuel efficiency and alternative fuels ina big way. They have many models that get 30MPG+. But they are still screwed. Why?

Because for one thing, GM spends 6 BILLION dollars a year on health care and retirement plans. That's "billion" with "B." GM also made the mistake of pricing it's vehicles higher, but offering rebates and special financing to compensate. The result? No one will buy a GM car unless he's paying 20% less than sticker in the end. When the economy goes South, they have no where to go. They needed the incentives when the economy was GOOD, much less what it is now. Rip on them all you want. They are what...the second or third largest company on planet Earth? Yeah, let's do nothing with the bailout and let them tank. Say goodbye not just to GM, but to GMAC. Guess who is a subsidiary of GMAC? That's right, another mortgage bank goes bust.

[PBG4 User]

Too bad the auto industry was just approved to receive that $25B loan they've been requesting.

[tie]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

How can you even be serious. I posted the FDIC link to show bank failures. You focus on one and only one apsect...the total number of failures, then make the ridiculous leap that "things are just the same" as they were in 2002. Holy hell. If you honestly believe that, then I again get down on my knees and thank God himlself you are not running the country. The ignorance is amazing.

Why did you post that link then? See, that's why you need to give some analysis next time.

GM is not in bad shape solely because it "bet on bigger, less fuel efficient cars" or because of "terrible" executives. The price of gas hurt GM, but that is simply not their biggest worry. In recent years, they have focused on fuel efficiency and alternative fuels ina big way... Because for one thing, GM spends 6 BILLION dollars a year on health care and retirement plans.

No, those are pretty much the reasons. They've been followers instead of leaders on fuel efficient cars. They are now struggling to catch up because they've spent their money on lobbying Congress against higher fuel efficiency standards, instead of on researching the technology they need. Why are they spending $6 billion on health care and retirement? (And why do you need to capitalize billion? McCain has the bad habit of confusing billion and million; I hope you're okay.) Because their executives negotiated long-term agreements that the company couldn't afford. The executives didn't care because they were in it for the short term. A company that is so badly mismanaged should go bankrupt so a new company with fresh leadership (and fresh labor agreements) can take its place. Propping up losers hurts us all.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by bearcatrp 

I like this idea better.........................

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.

I think that it wouldn't work:

Money has no inherent unchangeable worth, 425,000 $ can mean a lot or mean nothing, depending on the worth of the dollar and the economy. Giving out a lot of money to people while the trust in the economy is zero or even minus could be contraproductive. The people would try to keep their money, to wait for better times to spend it in or exchange it for gold, because they think that might help to circumvent the collapse of the dollar-currency...

So within the logic of capitalism it's better to give the money to institutions who's only goal is to use money to make more money, that way the economy might have a better opportunity to get on track again, and the day might come where the government gets the bail-out-money back.

I personally think that the bail-out won't solve the problem, that it might be too little too late, that in fact the bail-out will force banks to search their books and expose their foul assets which will multiply the insolvent banks, but then again better to try something and go down than going down doing nothing.

Taliesin

[stwain2003]

It sucks that it has come to this, but my mom's retirement is in AIG so I'm glad they bailed it out.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Again, this shows a total ignorance of both GM's business problems and the overall economy. Stop...you're embarassing yourself.

GM is not in bad shape solely because it "bet on bigger, less fuel efficient cars" or because of "terrible" executives. The price of gas hurt GM, but that is simply not their biggest worry. In recent years, they have focused on fuel efficiency and alternative fuels ina big way. They have many models that get 30MPG+. But they are still screwed. Why?

Because for one thing, GM spends 6 BILLION dollars a year on health care and retirement plans. That's "billion" with "B." GM also made the mistake of pricing it's vehicles higher, but offering rebates and special financing to compensate. The result? No one will buy a GM car unless he's paying 20% less than sticker in the end. When the economy goes South, they have no where to go. They needed the incentives when the economy was GOOD, much less what it is now. Rip on them all you want. They are what...the second or third largest company on planet Earth? Yeah, let's do nothing with the bailout and let them tank. Say goodbye not just to GM, but to GMAC. Guess who is a subsidiary of GMAC? That's right, another mortgage bank goes bust.

Six billion dollars, while not an insignificant sum, is about 5% of GM's annual revenue, but that tired old strawman keeps getting trotted out every time someone needs to point to a reason that GM isn't doing so well. The "Big Three" are in trouble because they sat on their fat asses when economical imports started coming into this country forty years ago, often laughing at the thought of the Japanese thinking they were going to make a profit on small cars and that they were going to sell lots of them. They made half-hearted attempts to "compete" with utter crap like the Corvair, and the Falcon, and the Japanese just kept plugging away. Suddenly, because most American businessmen can't see past the end of their noses, Toyota passes Ford (as has VW), and the shrinking dying Three go running to Washington, whining and begging for $25 billion of our money! The sad, and tragic, fact of the matter is that GM has an incompetent executive staff, who haven't gotten the job done in years, and expect to be rewarded for their failures. GM doesn't make cars that people want to buy, and that isn't Washington's problem, nor yours and mine, and it's high time we all recognized that.

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Six billion dollars, while not an insignificant sum, is about 5% of GM's annual revenue, but that tired old strawman keeps getting trotted out every time someone needs to point to a reason that GM isn't doing so well. The "Big Three" are in trouble because they sat on their fat asses when economical imports started coming into this country forty years ago, often laughing at the thought of the Japanese thinking they were going to make a profit on small cars and that they were going to sell lots of them. They made half-hearted attempts to "compete" with utter crap like the Corvair, and the Falcon, and the Japanese just kept plugging away. Suddenly, because most American businessmen can't see past the end of their noses, Toyota passes Ford (as has VW), and the shrinking dying Three go running to Washington, whining and begging for $25 billion of our money! The sad, and tragic, fact of the matter is that GM has an incompetent executive staff, who haven't gotten the job done in years, and expect to be rewarded for their failures. GM doesn't make cars that people want to buy, and that isn't Washington's problem, nor yours and mine, and it's high time we all recognized that.

What do you think this is...1985?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

What do you think this is...1985?

No, I'm damn sure it's 2008, and that doesn't change anything. Once again, GM, Ford, and Chrysler make less products that people want to buy than do Honda, Toyota, et. al, and that's why they're in trouble. If you can't convince people that your product is superior, they won't buy it.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by bearcatrp 

I like this idea better.........................

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.

So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.

That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in thei r pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads

Put away money for college - it'll be there

Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.

Buy a new car - create jobs

Invest in the market - capital drives growth

Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves

Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else


Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed
by one of our candidates for President.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG - liquidate it.

Sell off its parts.

Let American General go back to being American General.

Sell off the real estate.

Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."

But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion

We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC

And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

Ummm... Except YOU didn't do the math.

$85,000,000,000/200,000,000 people = $425/1 person. So instead of your $425k, you'd get back $425.

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No, I'm damn sure it's 2008, and that doesn't change anything. Once again, GM, Ford, and Chrysler make less products that people want to buy than do Honda, Toyota, et. al, and that's why they're in trouble. If you can't convince people that your product is superior, they won't buy it.

That is really only part of the problem though. They have been focusing on better products for years. That said, I still think that Toyota and Honda (for example) make better products. I myself drive a Toyota, for example. But I think in terms quality, things are really evening out.

But a lot of this is pricing. You have a $40,000 SUV that most customers pay $30,000 for. This model has caused them problems for years. They have rebates, employee pricing (which is crap, but whatever), special financing, etc. What does Toyota do? They almost never have rebates, expect during their annual model clearance. The price the car is is close to what the final price of the GM, Ford or Chrysler car is. Honestly, I think if they changed their pricing structure, it would help.

[stumblinmike]

AIG is back for more money from Uncle Sam. After securing 150 BILLION taxpayer dollars, they will report a US corporate record loss of 60 BILLION dollars next Monday. Well done! The taxpayers own 80% of this Ponzi scheme, and unless we give them more $$$, they face bankruptcy! This was Bush and Cheneys brilliance in action. So lets bailout these sh*theads, because WE HAVE TO, and let the little people lose their homes. The date for the Revolution has just been shortened by another decade. We will soon hear how AIG HAS to sponsor a stadium, a golf tournament, and a NASCAR to keep their "talent", along with the requisite bonuses and private jets. Grab your pitchforks and torches!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Grab your pitchforks and torches!

And then what ? Go after Obama ?

He will give them money just as Bush did. Yet another proof that he is not about change.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And then what ? Go after Obama ?

He will give them money just as Bush did. Yet another proof that he is not about change.

-t

I love it!!!

Wait! Where did everyone go?
- (R) + unprecedented spending = bad
- (D) + unprecedented spending = good

[stumblinmike]

IF Bush had let them fail, we wouldn't own them. Now, we have to (?) bail them out, because we own them! My humanitarian instincts tell me, f the corpoaration, help the little guy. You know, you and me..well, maybe not t, with his swiss accounts and all . i think t may be bernie madoff, they are never seen together, NEVER!!!

[Andrew Stephens]

Can't we start questioning this "can't be allowed to fail" stance?

Surely the value of these companies is entirely flexible. Any bank that fails totally will have it's assets bought by someone else (even at essentially zero value). Your mortgage won't evaporate, bank B will now own it, even if they got it for free. At a value of free, even toxic assets are not bad value since it's only a percentage that fail. Over time bank B will make money on these.

The losers will (of course) be bank A and it's shareholders, which may include average people via their pension funds, but when bank B gains there will gain there.

Sure there may be a net loss over time, but compared to the massive bail out figures doing the rounds?

So GM fails, yes the plants will close but GM would have closed them anyway since the market for the cars doen't exist. A.N. Other auto would buy the assets, again even at zero value and build those cars when the market allows.

It does begin to look that whatever governments do is really just p***ing in the wind against the overall effects of the downturn.

Go with it I say, get the pain done with now and move on.

Here in the UK my daughter (currently 11) will be still be paying sky high taxes when she is 35 to pay for the borrowing we have committed to to date, and there is surely more to come.

With Lloyds Banking group on the government books the UK is effectively borrowed up to (and beyond) 100% of GDP, which is just insane.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

IF Bush had let them fail, we wouldn't own them. Now, we have to (?) bail them out, because we own them!

And you really think that Obama would have let AIG fail if he had been in charge in Fall 2008 ?

BS. And btw, just so you don't spread any more propaganda, the Bush administration only gave temporary relief to GM and Chrysler, tied to showing a viable turnaround plan.

I'll bet you eleventy billion $$$ that Obama will continue to bail out GM and Chrysler, no matter how viable their plans are.
Bush was far more reluctant to hand out money for failing businesses, whereas Obama, well, let's just say he seems to be a natural at handing out government funds...

-t

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

... the Bush administration only gave temporary relief to GM and Chrysler, tied to showing a viable turnaround plan ... will continue to bail out GM and Chrysler, no matter how viable their plans are.

Obviously if their plans were viable, they wouldn't need to be bailed out for a second time. Well, third time for Chrysler.

Maybe three times a charm, eh?

[OldManMac]

The question I have, and haven't heard an answer to yet, is why is the federal gubmint giving money to Chrysler at all? Cerebrus Capital is a privately held company, and they no doubt have billions in cash; why should the government not make them accountable for their finances before handing them money, simply because they asked for it?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The question I have, and haven't heard an answer to yet, is why is the federal gubmint giving money to Chrysler at all? Cerebrus Capital is a privately held company, and they no doubt have billions in cash; why should the government not make them accountable for their finances before handing them money, simply because they asked for it?

Cerberus says they can't dedicate more money to Chrysler, because it would violate the investment agreements with the people that gave money to Cerberus. If that's true, there's really nothing they can do other than asking for a bailout.

Besides, if Cerberus decided to just f*** it and drop Chrysler, the Obama administration needed to decide if they'd be willing for Chrysler to go bankrupt. Obviously, right now, they are not.

-t

[Andy8]

AIG reports record $61.7bn loss