Bailout or no Bailout?

J

jonbig04

We all know what I'm talking about. I'm curious to know the reasons behind why you think the bailout is necessary or not. The market as a whole seems to want one. I've heard a lot of politicians voice their opposition to the fact that the bailout is going to some of the very people responsible for the mess we're in. That's true, but honestly what choice do we have? Yes it sucks, no they don't deserve it, but isn't our entire financial system at stake? What choice do we have?

If you are against the bailout please explain why in factual economic terms.

If you are for the bailout please explain the consequences not having one will bring.
 
Quote from jonbig04:



If you are against the bailout please explain why in factual economic terms.

If you are for the bailout please explain the consequences not having one will bring.
More...

I am a fiscal conservative, and I oppose blanket bailouts.

However, having said that, I think it's fine just as long as we follow the Swedish model and take massive equity stakes in the companies involved, including board seats.

Unfortunately, I'm also a pragmatist, and the market does not always work properly (witness 1929) and so I can see where this may be necessary to fix the margining problems brought on by the increased margining allowed by the Bush administration for the big financial institutions.

This problem didn't have to happen, but now that the Bush administration has caused it by reducing regulation, we should at least try to profit off of it.
 
Quote from jonbig04:

We all know what I'm talking about. I'm curious to know the reasons behind why you think the bailout is necessary or not. The market as a whole seems to want one. I've heard a lot of politicians voice their opposition to the fact that the bailout is going to some of the very people responsible for the mess we're in. That's true, but honestly what choice do we have? Yes it sucks, no they don't deserve it, but isn't our entire financial system at stake? What choice do we have?

If you are against the bailout please explain why in factual economic terms.

If you are for the bailout please explain the consequences not having one will bring.
More...

I've heard what appeared to be plausible arguments for and against.

I honestly don't know. If I were king and had to choose. I'd probably not do the bail out.

But then if I were king everyone, and I do mean everyone, responsible would be publicly hanged, drawn and quartered.
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

This problem didn't have to happen, but now that the Bush administration has caused it by reducing regulation, we should at least try to profit off of it.
More...

True, but Bush was not alone.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26774653/

From the article:

Alan Greenspan, as Fed chairman, supported "counterparty supervision," which meant financial institutions would keep close watch on their trading partners out of self-interest. And Robert E. Rubin, as Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, helped repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, which had restricted what commercial and investment banks could do. Moreover, deregulation, in general, was good politics.
 
Quote from jonbig04:

I think everyone dislikes the bailout, but won't the consequences of doing nothing be potentially HUGE?
More...

Like every thing else it seems to depend on who you ask.

I saw someone interviewed this morning who is of the opinion we need the consequences of no bailout.
 
IMAO: Country First

"I think it’s a good idea that McCain is postponing his campaign to go do work because I think it comes out of our federal tax dollars to pay him to be a Senator so he should probably do that from time to time. Then again, because of him taking public funds for his campaign, I guess we’re actually paying him more to campaign.

Anyway, this being a crisis and all, maybe Biden should head back to D.C. too. Biden’s been in the Senate for forever, so he might actually know a thing or two that’s useful. Plus, he’s absolutely no use on the campaign trail.

I think it’s good of Obama to keep campaigning. With serious work to do, the last thing the Senate needs is Obama skipping around asking questions like “What’s a stock?” and “How many pennies are in a dollar?” Seriously, between starting in the Senate in 2005 and his presidential campaign, Obama has only worked as a Senator for maybe a couple weeks. What possible use could he be? He can just vote “Unpresent” for this.

Being the governor of Alaska, Palin isn’t needed for all this, so she should go ahead and debate Obama on Friday. That’s seems a bit more fair than having him debate McCain, anyway. McCain could eventually debate Biden to make up for that, but who the hell would care to watch that?

One last note: I think the first thing McCain should do when he gets to Washington is knock that doddering old fart Reid to the ground. Just like with using a keyboard, I’m sure knocking Reid to the ground will be harder for McCain that it would be for us, but I’m sure he can manage it anyway."

:) :) :)
 
Quote from Yannis:


One last note: I think the first thing McCain should do when he gets to Washington is knock that doddering old fart Reid to the ground.

:) :) :)
More...


That "doddering old fart Reid" is years younger than McCain.
 
Quote from wjk:

True, but Bush was not alone.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26774653/

From the article:

Alan Greenspan, as Fed chairman, supported "counterparty supervision," which meant financial institutions would keep close watch on their trading partners out of self-interest. And Robert E. Rubin, as Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, helped repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, which had restricted what commercial and investment banks could do. Moreover, deregulation, in general, was good politics.
More...

Now now, not fair to give Rubin and Clinton credit for Gramm's baby: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top