Humorless Politics Thread

[Fido]

I agree with your first paragraph yesno, but I'm not sure about the second. There's a lot of misinformation circulating about this, but also a great deal of fair skepticism about the ability to sell assets and recoup their value at some future point. I believe it's not only possible but likely, and probably possible at a substantial profit. That's how the bill needed to be sold in my opinion, but apparently few were willing to stick their necks out that far, leaving the "bailing out Wall Street" theme the more prominent one, and the "corporate socialism" crowd apparently crowed loudly enough to swing the bill in what was, I believe, the wrong direction.

As for the Democrats' ability to pass a different rescue bill on their own, I'd need lots of persuading that that could happen a month away from house elections. It would also have to be signed by The Moron In The White House.

[Steve of Bloomington]

now you're thinking in the right direction.  the US Political System is the new WWF.

is that Sarah Palin's husband?

Unlikely, I hear he's a separatist.

[Gilly]

but I don't think it's worth having a depression just to prove a point or to teach fat cats a lesson.

Do you really think we would have a depression though? I don't. These are businesses that sucked at what they do and failed. There's still some worth in them so let other businesses who are good at what they do buy them and if they don't want to it means the failed businesses were worthless anyway. Throwing a trillion dollars at failed businesses seems like a horrific idea especially when it's not just the trillion, it's also our dollar looking worse off than before, something I didn't think was possible. I'm just glad I don't own anything or have any kind of savings.

[yesno]

The collapse of short term credit markets and pension funds etc  would be bad for a lot of innocent people and honest businesses, but I agree that "depression" is probably overstated. 

[Fido]

We understand the function of the central bank a lot better than we did in the 1930s, and our economy has corrective mechanisms (e.g. unemployment compensation, the tax system) that either didn't exist then or weren't designed in a way to accommodate such a crisis. We also have a Fed Chairman whose career has centered around the study of the Great Depression, which should be worth something should the worst happen.

A depression seems very unlikely, but a long, deep, painful recession might not be.

[Gilly]

I can see some companies not being able to make payroll and having to lay off people. But, I think that might happen no matter what. I don't see not voting for the bailout as trying to prove a point, I see it as not wanting to throw money at a serious problem. Instead, we need to work through a recession and deal with the consequences of what's happened because if the bailout doesn't work we're right back where we were with a dollar that's worth next to nothing. Then we'll be talking depression.

[John Junk 2.0]

My main problem with the bailout (and I'm really not that well-versed on this, so bear with me) is that it seems to me that if the taxpayers have 700 billion dollars to throw around, then the taxpayers should be able to spend that 700 billion on themselves in the event of a really bad recession, rather than using it to bail out predatory and incompetent corporate entities that did most of the work that put them in the really bad recession.

Also, Our country has been running on these "You fuck up you die" economic principles for so long that it is uniquely and specifically offensive and insane at this historical moment in this country to be bailing out these corporations, essentially saying "There is a completely different standard for corporations then there are for the little people."  This bailout may actually be the right thing to do, but, unlike Sweden, we have been living in economic conditions that are totally opposed to government intervention, and if they're going to intervene in this, then they better follow it up with, or at least start talking about, some kind of investment in social assistance down the line for people who need it.

Also, the taxpayers actually don't have 700 billion dollars to throw around, so NO.

Also (and somewhat related to what I just said) wouldn't any corporate exec worth their salt start streamlining the shit out of their corporations with or without the bailout?  I mean, doesn't it stand to reason that the fear itself is enough to create the conditions we're wishing to avoid even if a bailout gets passed?   And then if there's no self-correction that occurs, what's to keep this from becoming the new pattern; people get hyper-rich on speculation, taxpayers bail them out on borrowed money.  That's like paying off your Visa with your Mastercard every month.  How many times can we do that before our entire country is foreclosed on by all the other countries that bought all our debt?

I got a lot of questions, yesno.

I feel like this crisis ought to be the final death-knell for the insanity of Reaganomics, but my fear is that this bailout will happen and then the impulse will be to simply carry on as if nothing just happened.  I can't even begin to understand what that would mean for the country.

[Gilly]

I just don't understand why Democrats are for the bailout. It seems so backwards and the fact that both McCain and Obama tiptoed around the bailout questions at the debate make me think they're both fine with how the economy is being run right now and don't really want to change it. Only the real Republicans are really making sense right now. I guess if somebody can tell me why every Democrat seems to think that spending 700 billion dollars to support what probably equates to the top 5 percent is a good thing, I'll listen. But as for now, it baffles me how all of the liberals are on board with this while Obama attacks McCain for taxing the middle class and not the rich... What's going on here?

[John Junk 2.0]

Lobbyists.

Also, in terms of core principals, it could be argued that the bailout would mean more government oversight of markets in the future, which is a totally Democrat thing.

The govt. bailing anybody (little guy OR big guy) out is more in line with Democratic core principals then Republican core principals.  So Pelosi says Dems'll support the bailout only if there's stuff in their that Democrats supposedly believe in (govt. owns the deed so the govt. can create programs to help people keep their houses instead of just recycling them into the stock market or whatever the fuck is happening now).  For republicans, it's not about bundling it with social programs, because they hate social programs.  For them, they're actually so politically bankrupt due to the Bush Admin. getting them into this mess, and the general principal of the bailout being against their core principals, that it actually benefits them more to be obstructionist on this because distancing themselves from the Bush Admin. is literally the last thing they can do before becoming completely irrelevant.  Maybe(?)

[Gilly]

The Republicans who are voting this down aren't Bush/McCain neo-cons. They're old guard republicans that will always vote against government bailouts. I wish those Republicans were still in the majority. I don't know if I'd vote for them but America would be in a better spot if that was the kind of Republican running the country. I know that Democrats like to throw money at problems (along with neo-cons) but still, throwing money at the rich seems to be the last thing they should be doing right now.

[John Junk 2.0]

I tend to agree with the sentiment of Nancy Pelosi's statement today: how has this been allowed to get this far before doing anything about it?

[Gilly]

Well, she's speaker of the house so where was she?

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

now you're thinking in the right direction.  the US Political System is the new WWF.

is that Sarah Palin's husband?

Unlikely, I hear he's a separatist.

I think that's her son, Genesis.

[yesno]

I think the idea is that the system is being bailed out.  The fact that some bad actors are saved is an unfortunate side effect.  And the owners of companies that fuck up usually get little out of bailouts-- the idea is to preserve the ongoing operations of the entity, not to keep investors from going broke.

I don't think that the morality/fairness arguments coming from the left or the economic ideology arguments from the right are contributing much.

I think most Democrats support the plan because it's a good idea.  It makes pragmatic sense.  In my mind it's more like bailing out a company that provides essential infrastructure like an electric company.  No matter how greedy, corrupt, and mismanaged the company was, nevertheless the lights can't go out.  Couple that with the fact that the plan might make the government money, either directly or through increased(or higher than they otherwise would be) tax revenues down the road, it seems like a pretty good idea given the circumstances.

Republicans by and large don't support it because they think that the "market" is this independent, naturally occurring entity that exists outside of government, and all that government can ever do is interfere with it for good or ill.  But contracts, rights, property, and money only exist to the extent that the government says they do, and markets always operate on a foundation of rules that are set by the political process.  Which is my cumbersome way of saying that being opposed to government intervention in markets just because is silly.  Why not get rid of the government intervention that is limited liability corporations?  Then creditors can recoup their losses by simply suing shareholders individually.  Some of them are bound to be rich.

Overall I think that government intervention to short circuit market death spirals can be a good idea.  Sellers crowding the market drives prices down which in turn devalues the assets companies weren't selling, which makes them have to sell more to raise more cash, and down and down everything goes.  Governments have the ability to hold onto assets until they regain a more normal value.  Everything would eventually work out without the government as savvy people bought up the depressed assets and later make a killing, but the point is to avoid the hassle that attends whole sectors of the economy going bankrupt.  Again, you don't want the electric company to turn out the lights even if some investor in 2 months would eventually get things back up and running.

[Gilly]

I don't agree with that thought at all then. If a couple companies are bringing the system down, let them falter. It might bring a painful recession, but it will be quick. What the bailout will bring is a long, mid-level recession with the dollar in the gutter when we get out and if Obama gets elected, that will be his legacy...